SYMONDS & CO Vs. ADDL CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is directed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-12-1995. Ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is reproduced below :

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessee claimed deduction for carry forward loss of Rs. 41,75,074. The assessing officer, however, allowed deduction for carry forward loss of earlier years at Rs. 38,53,011 and, therefore, made adjustment of Rs. 3,22,063 being the difference between the assessees claim for loss of Rs. 41,75,074 and actual carry forward loss as per earlier years record of the department at Rs. 38,53,011. The assessing officer also demanded additional tax.

(3.) In first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that the information sent by the assessing officer under section 143(1)(a) without giving the details of the adjustment made is contrary to the mandatory requirement of the second proviso to section 143(1). The adjustment of loss of earlier assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 are outside the purview of the prima facie adjustment permissible under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) and not sustainable. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the prima facie adjustments made by the assessing officer are contrary to the Boards Circular No. 549 dated 31-10-1989, in 182 ITR-Statute at page 19. The assessing officer has no power to go beyond or behind the return, accounts or document in allowing or disallowing any such deduction, allowances or relief as mentioned in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania, Dy. CIT, 1992 196 ITR 55. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, supported the orders of the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals).