ORDER
R.L. Sangani, Judicial Member
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to assessment year 1985-86.
2. The assessee is a company in which public is substantially interested. For assessment year 1985-86 the assessee filed return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 19,120. The Income-tax Officer in the assessment order made under Section 143(3) of the Act determined the total loss at the said figure, but directed that the said loss would not be carried forward. The reason given for this direction was that the return had been filed on 2-9-1985 which date was beyond the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the above mentioned directions and drew attention of the CIT(A) to the Circular of the C.B.D.T dated 18-7-1985. In said Circular the C.B.D.T. observed that representation had been received to the effect that due to disturbed conditions and curfew in Gujarat the time for filing of returns should be extended. It is further mentioned in the circular that the Board had accepted those representations and that no penalty for late filing of return should be levied if the returns were filed on or before 31-8-1985. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that 31-8-1985 was Saturday and 1 -9-1985 was Sunday and both these days were holidays and as such return filed on 2-9-1985 should be regarded to have been filed within the time allowed by the Board. The CIT(A) did not accept this submission. He stated that the returns were required to be filed on or before 31-8-1985 and as such the fact that 31-8-1985 was a holiday was irrelevant and that the return should have been filed before 31 -8-1985 in order to obtain benefit under said instructions of the Board. He accordingly confirmed the directions of the Income-tax officer to the effect that loss should not be carried forward. The assessee has now come in further appeal before the Tribunal.
3. After hearing the parties I find that the principle on which Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is based would be applicable. The Board had realised that due to widespread disturbances in Gujarat and due to the fact that curfew was in force for long time in Gujarat the time for filing of returns should be extended. The Board accordingly extended the time for filing of returns upon 31-8-1985. Since 31-8-1985 and 1-9-1985 were holidays, the return could not have been filed on those days. The return was filed on immediately succeeding day when the offices reopened. Consequently, the return should be regarded to have been filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is true that the assessee had not filed Form No. 6 before the Income-tax Officer. However, the Circular of the Board itself indicated that due to disturbances and due to enforcement of curfew the assessees could not have taken any action for filing of returns which impliedly included filing of Form No. 6. Consequently, mere fact that assessee had not filed Form No. 6 seeking extension of time was irrelevant. Then the Board had issued those instructions, it should be regarded that the ITO had allowed time up to the date mentioned in the Circular of the Board. Under the instructions of the Board the return could have been validly filed on 31-8-1985 and that it was not necessary that it should have been necessarily filed before 31-8-1985. However, on 31-8-1985 return could not have been filed because the offices were closed and as such return filed on 2-9-1985 should be regarded to have been filed within further time as allowed by the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, condition mentioned in Section 80 of the Act for allowing carry forward of loss was satisfied. I, therefore, set aside the direction of the Income-tax Officer and direct that the loss determined by the Income-tax Officer shall be allowed to be carried forward in accordance with law.
4. The appeal is allowed.