OBEETEE LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the refusal to allow the carry forward of losses as the return of income under Section 139(1) of Income-tax Act was filed beyond time, the petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of hand-knitted woollen carpets, has filed this petition. It has been urged that the law on the carry forward of losses having been settled by the Supreme Court, this court and other courts in numerous decisions, the order was manifestly erroneous. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC), Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 838 (Cal), Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 610 (Bom) and CIT v. Manmohan Das [1966] 59 ITR 699 (SC). Learned counsel submitted that the law having been declared by the Supreme Court, it was the law of the land and the Income-tax Officer was bound to follow it. And the omission to do so vitiates the order.

(2.) THE legal position being clear, the remedy, in our opinion, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Department, is to approach the appellate authority. Although an alternative remedy is no bar, yet, the order cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction. THE decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Bajpai (O. S.), ITO 11070] 105 ITR 864 (All), New India Investment Corporation Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 143 ITR 909 (Cal) or observation made in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1901] 41 ITR 191 (SC) need not be discussed, nor is it necessary to express any opinion on the applicability of the ratio in respect of carry forward losses, Since the Act itself provides an efficacious and effective remedy, it would not be proper to entertain the writ petition merely because the assessing authority chose to disregard the directions of the appellate authority or it may require the petitioner to approach the appellate authority again. No case of urgency is also made out.