CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1989) 01 P&H CK 0071

B.C.S. Kartar Chit Fund and Finance Co. P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 January 1989 · Citation: (1989) 179 ITR 137

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sodhi, J · Gokal Chand Mital, J
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Reference No. 75 of 1980

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 356 words

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here pertains to the assessee''s claim for set off during the assessment year 1976-77 of Rs. 18,435 on account of unabsorbed loss suffered by it during the assessment year 1971-72. This claim was rejected both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also by the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee had not claimed this unabsorbed loss for several years and the time limit for it had also expired. This is what has led to the following questions being referred to this court for its decision :

"(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that unabsorbed losses could not be claimed by the assessee during the year under appeal as they had not been claimed during the earlier years by the assessee and they had not been carried forward to the year under appeal by the Income Tax Officer ?

(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that time limit has also expired ?"

2.

The answer to the first question is provided by the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Tyresoles (India), Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, , where it was held that where losses sustained are not set off against the profits of the immediately succeeding year or years, they cannot be set off against profits at a later date. The assessee thus not having sought to set off the unabsorbed loss in the succeeding assessment years after 1971-72 could not seek to claim it later, subsequently in the year 1976-77. Question No. (1) has thus to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

3.

As regards the time limit, the Tribunal clearly fell into an error in agreeing with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had taken it to be four years. The law is, in fact, well-settled that the time limit for this purpose is really eight years. Question No. (2) has thus to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

4.

The reference is answered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.