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.
-2-
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.
-3-
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
