The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-communication of an order that could have a detrimental effect on the party concerned would make the order ineffective and incomplete, emphasizing the importance of communicating decisions that affect the rights of the parties involved.

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench c , has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ?whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of the assessed loss even though the return was filed late, in view of the specific provisions of Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961??

( 2 ) THE assessee is a company within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Fluxes used by mini-steel plants for removing impurities from melted steel. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was required to file the return on or before 30th June, 1983. The assessee had, by way of an application, sought time up to 30th August 1984 for filing the return for the year ending on 30th June 1983. The Assessing Officer passed an order on file refusing to extend time for filing the return. However, the refusal of extension of time sought by the assessee by way of its application was not conveyed to the assessee. The assessee had claimed to allow it to carry forward the assessed loss.

( 3 ) PROCEEDING on the footing that the time to file the return was extended upto 31st August, 1983, the assessee filed its return of income for the year ending on 30th June, 1983 on 30th July, 1984, disclosing the loss of Rs. 2,50,310/ -. The return of income was supported with audited statements of Profit and Loss Accounts and the balance sheet. The assessee had claimed to allow it to carry forward the assessed loss. Since the Assessing Officer did not allow to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return was filed late, the assessee, being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who directed the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the assessed loss since the refusal for extension of time was not conveyed to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied upon the case of CIT vs. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai, (1983) 142 ITA 84 wherein the view has been taken that it was the statutory duty enjoined upon the Assessing Officer to entertain an application for extension of time to furnish the return and to render his decision on such application, and communicate the same to the assessee concerned. Another decision relied upon was in the case of Presidency Medical Center (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 38 Calcutta wherein it is held that the loss has to be carried forward even if the return is filed within the time given in Section 139 (4 ).

( 4 ) THEREUPON, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. After taking note of the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and after hearing the Revenue and considering the written submissions by the assessee, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the direction given by the first Appellate Authority was just and proper and called for no interference, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ). This has given rise to the instant Reference.

( 5 ) THOUGH the assessee is duly served, it has neither appeared through its constituted agent nor through a lawyer. This Court has heard Ms. Mona M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue, at length and in great detail as well as considered the facts of the case.

( 6 ) THE undisputed facts are that the assessee made an application to the Assessing Officer seeking extension of time up to 30th August 1984 for filing of the return for the year ending on 30th June 1983, but actually, it filed the return on 30th July 1984, i. e. within the period of extension of time sought by it. The application for extension of time was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the factum of rejection of the application for extension of time was not conveyed to the assessee.

( 7 ) IT would be relevant, at this stage, to refer t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document