Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE CENTRAL STATE FARM: ARALAM FARM versus AGRICULTURAL INCOMETAX OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE CENTRAL STATE FARM: ARALAM FARM v. AGRICULTURAL INCOMETAX OFFICER - ST Rev No. 74 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 17314 (13 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST Rev No. 74 of 2003()

1. THE CENTRAL STATE FARM: ARALAM FARM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. AGRICULTURAL INCOMETAX OFFICER
... Respondent

2. KERALA AGRL.INCOMETAX APPELLATE

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :13/09/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

S.T.Rev.Nos.74, 134, 135, 136 & 137 of 2003

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007.

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these revision petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. The matter arises under the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act. The assessment years in question are 1997-98, 1991-92, 1996-97, 1994-95 and 1992-93 respectively.

3. In these tax revision cases the assessee has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision.

"A. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revision petitioner is not eligible to carry forward and set off loss for the years 1991-92 to 1996-97 on the ground that they have not filed returns in the prescribed form on or before the due date for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1996-97? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that in view of the provisions of Rule 13 of the AIT Act, claim for set off loss for 1991-92 to 1996-97 cannot be allowed, notwithstanding the fact that Sec.12 of the Act provides for carry forward of loss for 8 years? C. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that in the case of the Revision Petitioner, the last date for filing Return of Income is 31st day of December every year and that the Revision Petitioner is covered by Sec.35(1) of the AIT Act? S.T.Rev.74 of 2003 & con.cases. D. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application for re-opening the hearing of the appeals on 16-03- 2002 on the ground that prima facie no grounds have been made out? E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the decision of the other Benches of the Tribunal in AITA No.150, 151, 156 and 157/97 dated 23-01-1998 wherein it has been held that the appellant is entitled to carry forward of loss even though they did not file returns of income within the time stipulated, especially in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in 110/ ITR 453?

4. In our opinion, the questions of law framed by the assessee is no more res integra, in view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner V. Yucos Family Trust (TRC. No. 379 of 1998) dated 9-10-2002. In the said decision this Court has observed as under. "A reading of S.12 of the Act will show that the only limitation is

that loss can be carried forward only for eight years. There is no other condition attached. R. 13 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Rules is as follows: "Carry forward of loss in accordance with S.12 is admissible in any year when return is filed for all the years on the due date or within such time as may be allowed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer along with audited statement of accounts and a statement in Form 17. The assessee is entitled to carry forward loss, even though it did not file its return of income within the time prescribed under sub-s. (1) of S.139 of the Income Tax Act. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the loss can be carried forward even if the return is not filed in time."

3. In view of the law declared by this Court in the afore-said S.T.Rev.74 of 2003 & con.cases. decision, the questions of law framed requires to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

MS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.