COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CHANDRAN R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is the petitioner. THE respondent is an assessee to income-tax. For the year 1976-77, he filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 18,550. Though the fact of loss was accepted with slight variations, the Income-tax Officer refused to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. This was upheld in appeal. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the return had to be considered as one filed under section 139(4) of the Act. THE Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Telster Advertising (P.) Ltd.s case, [1979]116ITR610(Bom) . THE Bombay High Court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd., 1970 77 ITR 518 . It was one rendered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. THE Revenue filed an application under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act to refer two questions of law which arose out of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. It was declined. THEreupon this original petition was filed by the Revenue, praying that this court may be pleased to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the two questions of law formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petition for the decision of this court. THEy are as follows :

(2.) WE heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Menon. The decision in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd.s case, [1970]77ITR518(SC) rendered by the Supreme Court, as also the other decisions, which have followed the said case, requires a fresh appraisal, in view of the provisions contained in section 139(1) read with section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act. WE should state that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sections 22 and 23, were far different from the provisions contained in the 1961 Act. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the questions of law formulated by the Revenue in paragraph 7 of the original petition (quoted above) do arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the above-mentioned two questions of law for the decision of this court.