Case Of Deputy Commissioner v. Yucos Family Trust (Trc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 22ND BHADRA 1929 ST.Rev..No. 74 of 2003 ------------------------------------ AITA.100/2000 of AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE BENCH: KOZHIKOIDE. .................... PETITIONER ------------------ THE CENTRAL STATE FARM: ARALAM FARM POST: KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.P.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOMETAX OFFICER TALIPARAMBA. 2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL .INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2007, ALONG WITH STRV NO. 134 OF 2003 STRV NO. 135 OF 2003 STRV NO. 136 OF 2003 STRV NO. 137 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- S.T.Rev.Nos.74, 134, 135, 136 & 137 of 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of September, 2007. O R D E R H.L.Dattu, C.J. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in theserevision petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by thiscommon order. 2. The matter arises under the provisions of the KeralaAgricultural 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 therevision petitioner is not eligible to carry forward and set off lossfor the years 1991-92 to 1996-97 on the ground that they havenot filed returns in the prescribed form on or before the due datefor the assessment years 1991-92 to 1996-97? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that inview of the provisions of Rule 13 of the AIT Act, claim for set offloss for 1991-92 to 1996-97 cannot be allowed, notwithstandingthe fact that Sec.12 of the Act provides for carry forward of lossfor 8 years? C. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that in the case of theRevision Petitioner, the last date for filing Return of Income is31[st] day of December every year and that the Revision Petitioner is covered by Sec.35(1) of the AIT Act? D. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing theapplication for re-opening the hearing of the appeals on 16-03-2002 on the ground that prima facie no grounds have been madeout? E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the decisionof the other Benches of the Tribunal in AITA No.150, 151, 156and 157/97 dated 23-01-1998 wherein it has been held that theappellant is entitled to carry forward of loss even though they didnot file returns of income within the time stipulated, especially inview 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 of1998) dated 9-10-2002. In the said decision this Court has observed as under. E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the decisionof the other Benches of the Tribunal in AITA No.150, 151, 156and 157/97 dated 23-01-1998 wherein it has been held that theappellant is entitled to carry forward of loss even though they didnot file returns of income within the time stipulated, especially inview 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 of1998) 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 isthat loss can be carried forward only for eight years. There is noother condition attached. R. 13 of the Kerala AgriculturalIncome Tax Rules is as follows: “Carry forward of loss inaccordance with S.12 is admissible in any year when return isfiled for all the years on the due date or within such time as maybe allowed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer along withaudited statement of accounts and a statement in Form 17. Theassessee is entitled to carry forward loss, even though it did notfile 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 thematter, we are of the view that the Tribunal is correct in holdingthat the loss can be carried forward even if the return is not filedin 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 theassessee and against the revenue.Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU)CHIEF JUSTICE(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE MS