SUKRA DIAMOND TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), r/w s. 143(1A) of the Act. WP No. 7751 of 1994, relates to the levy of additional income-tax for the asst. yr. 1991-92 to the tune of Rs. 2,36,096. WP No. 7752 of 1994 relates to the levy of additional income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,86,492 for the asst. yr. 1992-93. In both the cases identical question is raised for consideration.

(2.) ONLY a few more facts have to be noticed before plunging into the provisions of law and the interpretation of the same. For the year 1991-92 the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 48,09,661 under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority disallowed the sum of Rs. 22,41,328 and a further sum of Rs. 39,788 under s. 43B of the Act. The assessing authority intimated to the petitioner that the loss was determined at Rs. 25,28,545. He proceeded to levy additional tax under s. 143(1A) to the tune of Rs. 2,36,096. Similarly, for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 48,47,744. The assessing authority disallowed under s. 43B of the Act, a sum of Rs. 16,21,656 and determined the loss at Rs. 32,26,088. He proceeded to levy additional tax under s. 143(1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,86,492.

(3.) ONE of the decisions which necessitated the Parliament to amend s. 143(1A)(a) is the decision reported in Modi Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India (1992) 193 ITR 91 (Del). On facts, that decision is identical to the present case in the sense that there was also a return declaring loss and after adjustment the loss was reduced to a lesser extent, but no income resulted or disclosed after adjustment.