Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 19°2 February 18, 1950, but, in view of the absence of any Straw b oar d distinct provision d d in d'fi section · I 21 that the power of Ma ufacturing amen ment an mo 1 catwn conferred on the State ~o., Ltd. · Gtvernment may be so exercised as to have retrospec-v. tive operation the order of April 26, 1950, viewed Gutta .~fill merely as an order of ainendment or modification, Workers' Union. cannot" by virtue of section 21, h:i.ve that effect. If, -therefore, the amending order operates prospectively, Das J, d h i.e., only as from the ate oft e order, it cannot valid-ate the award whic.h had been made after the expiry of the time specified in the original order and before the date of the amending order, during which period the adjudicator was functus officio and had no jurisdic-tion to act at all. \Ve do not think the respondents can derive any support from section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. 0The result, therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed and the award must be declared to be null and void and we order accordingly. In the circum-stances of this case we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant : Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondent: S. D. Sekhari. Agent for the intervener: 0. P. Lal. 1952 Dec. 22. ANGLO-FRENCH TEXTIT~E CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.] India>! Income·tax Act (XI of 19e2), ss. 24 ( 2), 84-Return shoiving loss-lVhether loss can be recorded and carried forward-Proceedings fo1· re-assessment-Whether whole a.ssess·ment can be re-opened . . .\n assessee submitted a return showing the income as l<nil" ~nd this return was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. In the S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 449 next year the Income-tax Officer sent a notice to the assessee 1952 under s. 34 (1) (bl calling for a fresh return. The assessee sub-mitted ,a return .showing the income as "nil" and a loss of Anglo-J?i·ench Rs. 3,92,357 and claimed that the Joss should be recorded il,lld Textile Co., Ltd. carried forward under s. 24 (2) of the Income-tax Act. The loss v. was arrived at by striking a balance in the profit and loss account Commissioner of of just one business: Income-tax, 1952 Anglo-J?i·ench Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner Income-tax, Madras. Held, that the assessee was not entitled to have the loss determined and carried forward for two reasons, first, because when there is no income under any head at all there is nothing against which the loss can be set off in that year under s. 24 (1) and unless that can be done sub-s. (2) of s. 24 does not come into play ; secondly, a set-off uncler s. 24 (2) can only be claimed when the loss arises under one head and the profit against which it is sought to be set off under a different head. Qnaere : Whether when proceedings are taken under s. 34 for the assessment of income which has escaped assessment, the assessee is entitled to re-open the whole proceedings. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 18th January, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastri JJ.) in Case Referred No. 28 of 1947. 0. T. G. Nambiar (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the appellant. ' · M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi and P.A. Mehta, with them) for the respondent. 1952. December 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J.-The following question was referred to the High Court of Madras by the Income-tax Appellate 'rribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances -0f the case when an assessment has been made under section 23 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, de-termining the ass.essee company's income as' nil' and when proceedings under section 34 were sub-sequently started to assess the ·income which the