CIT Vs. ARUNAJOTHI BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice was served on the respondent and the name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list, none appears for the respondent. This tax case (appeal) has been filed at the instance of the Revenue raising the following substantial question of law :

(2.) The appeal concerned about the return filed by the respondent for the assessment year 1986-87. It appears that the assessee has claimed to carry forward the share of loss from the association of persons (AOP) determined in the previous year to be set off for the future years The assessing officer, on facts, held that in view of the fact that association of persons did not file the return of income for the assessment year 1986-87 under section 139(1) of the Act or within such further time as granted by the Department, the assessee is not entitled to carry forward the loss and to claim set off in the subsequent years.

(3.) This order was carried on appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while considering the factual aspects, had observed that "from the admitted facts as recorded in the case of M/s. M.G. Enterprises as extracted herein above, it is clear that the association of persons did file its return within the time extended by the assessing officer and, hence, the assessee is fully entitled to claim and be allowed to the benefit of carry forward of the loss determined in that case by the assessing officer".