COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M D THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961. The following question is referred for decision of this court :

(2.) THE assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1991 -92 claiming total loss of Rs. 6,04,043. In arriving at the loss the assessee had claimed deduction under sections 80HH and 80J to the extent of Rs. 2,63,130. The Assessing Officer processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income -tax Act and determined the loss at Rs. 3,40,930. The assessee's claim for relief under Sections 80HH and 80J was disallowed on the view that the result of the business being loss, deduction was not permissible. In the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) on the reduced loss of Rs. 3,40,930, additional tax of Rs. 24,450 was levied under Section 143(1A). The assessee then filed a petition for rectifying the intimation and deleting the additional tax. The Assessing Officer rejected the request for rectification. Appeal preferred by the assessee was also dismissed.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the assessee however took up the stand, placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. : [2000]243ITR48(SC) , that since there is no dishonest intention the assessee cannot be held liable. The Legislature has not used the expression 'dishonest intention'. Over and above, the decision in Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.'s case : [2000]243ITR48(SC) , has been distinguished and doubted by the apex court in Asst. CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. : [2001]251ITR200(SC) . In such circumstances, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.