State of Karnataka Vs. Marigowda

.....to carry forward loss suffered under the head of income computable under s. 10 may only be exercised if the voluntary return is filedwithin the period specified in sub-s. (1). sub-section 3 cannot be readas implying that notwithstanding the restrictions placed by sub-s. (2a)return disclosing loss of income computable under s. 10 will not onlybe entertained but the loss determined and declared under s. 24(3) so as to enable assessee to carry it forward. if a return of loss may be filed at any time in pursuance of a general notice under sub-s. (1), sub-s. (2a) will serve no purpose whatever, the limitation placed upon the right to file return of loss is clearly intended to avoid practical difficulties in the administration of the act. if the interpretation placed by the high court be accepted, a tax-payer may avoid making returns pursuant to notice under sub-s. (1) and when sought to be assessed in subsequent years he may claim to bring before. the authorities transactions relating to many previous years which be has not disclosed. [458 g-h; 459 a-c] it was certainly held by this court in ranchhoddas karsondas's case that a return disclosing income below the taxable limit or disclosing such loss cannot be rejected by the income-tax officer as not being return of income but that does not mean that the assessee may after filing volun- tary return of loss income under the head "profits and gains of business" after the period specified in s. 22(1) claim that the loss be determined and carried forward. [459 d-e] case-law referred to......bank, hassan. the defence of the respondent was that these amounts had been paid to pw 2, executive officer of the bank, to be deposited with the central co-operative bank. advantage was sought to be taken of the circumstance that pw 2 had, in fact, deposited three identical sums of money with the central co-operative bank, but, according to the evidence of pw 2, those amounts had been received by him not from the accused but from other persons. a sum of rs. 1,500 had been received from mallinathapura co-operative society, mallinathapura and that society had also been given a receipt for that amount. the amount of rs. 100 had been received by pw 2 from koti basave gowda and not from the accused. the amount of rs. 175/- was part of an amount of rupees 600/- which had been received by pw 2 for being credited in the district co-operative central bank, but the misappropriated amount was not part of this amount of rs 600/-. the evidence of pw2 was not challenged in cross-examination. his evidence was also fully substantiated by the entries in the accounts of the district co-operative central bank.2. the trial court accepted the evidence of pw 2 and convicted the respondent as stated above. the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned sessions judge.3. in revision the high court interfering with concurrent findings of fact, acquitted the accused. a perusal of the judgment of the high court makes if obvious that the high court had misdirected itself into thinking that the three amounts paid by pw 2 into the district co-operative central bank pertained to the amounts which the accused was alleged to have misappropriated pw 2 expressly stated that the amounts had been received by him from mallinathapura co-operative society, etc., and his evidence was not challenged in cross-examination, no suggestion was made to him and there was no justification whatsoever for the high court to reach the conclusion that these amounts were the very amounts which the.....