Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated February 8, 1991, by which adjustments have been made in the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and additional income-tax has been levied under Section 143(1A) of the Act. A copy of the order dated February 8, 1991, has been filed as annexure-6 to the petition.
(2.) It appears that, according to the return submitted by the petitioner, losses to the tune of rupees sixty-two crores sixty-nine lakhs odd were shown for the assessment year 1990-91. On adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, it was found that an amount of rupees four crores odd, claimed on account of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act was not admissible. Therefore, the assessing authority disallowed the amount claimed under Section 32A of the Act. As a result of the disallowance of the said amount, the figure of losses was brought down in the order, as "Adjusted total loss for the year . . . Rs. 58,02,60,207". The amount disallowed was to the extent of Rs. 4,67,10,306. The petitioner was thus required to pay Rs. 50,44,713 as additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Act. A sum of Rs. 37,98,100 was prepaid, hence the balance required to be deposited was Rs. 13,46,936, according to the impugned order.
(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no amount of income-tax or additional income-tax is chargeable on losses. By disallowance of investment allowance, only the amount of losses has been reduced. The petitioner still remains in loss to the tune of rupees fifty-eight crores odd. It has further been elaborated by saying that a decrease or reduction in losses does not amount to income.;