TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s search operation resulted in seizure of account books and another documents/ materials. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under appeal on an estimate basis estimating and declaring the income in a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. The said return purported to be under section 139(4) of the Act was not accompanied by copy of any trading account, profit and loss account, balance sheet or any other paper or documents in support of the return filed. A letter was, therefore, issued to the assessee on 18-12-1980 to support the return by document required as per law. The last date for compliance for removing the deficiency/defects was given tin 6th January, 1981. The assessee did not remove the defects/deficiency nor filed any papers or documents supporting the return so filed on 1-12-1980. Therefore, the said return filed on 1-12-1980 was invalid and non est and was lodged by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 28-6-1983 under section 148 of the Act which was served on the assessee on 2-7-1983 in compliance to which a return was filed on 10-3-1986 declaring a taxable income of Rs. 99,300. It appears from the record that the said return was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 153(2) of the Act. According to her the case is governed by the provisions of section 153(1)(c) and not by section 153(2) because the assessee filed a revised return on 30th March, 1988 and, therefore, the Assessing Officer got extension of time till 29th March, 1989 for framing of the assessment as laid down in section 153(1)(c) of the Act. Our attention was invited to the provisions of section 153(2), 153(1)(c), 148 and 139(5). In view of these sections the departmental representative submitted that the impugned order of the A/C deserves to be reversed. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Khetan, the ld. representative appearing for the assessee fully supported the reasoning of the A/C and submitted that the decision renderd by the A/C is fully justified and the departmental appeal, having no merits deserves to be dismissed. The assessee's counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Simson Mc Conechy Ltd [1989] 177 ITR 526 and decision of the Ahmedabad Bench 'A' of this Tribunal in the case of Maneklal Sakarchand v. ITO [1994] 50 TTJ (Ahd.) 370 which has considered the decisions for and against the controversy and also the CBDT's Instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue notice calling upon a person to file a return upon satisfaction of conditions laid down in section 147 about escapement of income and such notice shall contain and include all requirements as are contained in a notice under section 139(2) of the Act. Thus, such a notice under the enabling provisions of section 148(1) shall be deemed for all the intents and purposes of the Act as one issued under section 139(2) of the Act. It, therefore, follows and means, as a logical corollary that any return filed in compliance to a notice issued under section 148(1) shall be deemed as one filed in compliance to notice under section 139(2) of the Act and the Legislature has, therefore, laid down further in section 148(1) that once that is so then all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. And once a return is deemed as filed under section 139(2) then the assessee is permitted under section 139(5) to file a revised return if any, omissions, mistakes or wrong statements are discovered in the original return. The assessee in the instant case found that the income was incorrectly returned originally in compliance to notice under section 148(1) which in law, we repeat is deemed as a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the return was filed suo motu and voluntarily by the assessee under section 139(4) of the Act and, therefore it was held that no revised return could be filed under section 139(5) of the Act. In the present case we are dealing with a situation where return has been filed in compliance to provision of section 148(1) of the Act which equates it with the provisions of section 139(2) of the Act and section 139(5) authorises an assessee to file a revised return if the original return is filed either under section 139(1) or 139(2). 8. From the facts of the case we are firmly of the view that the return filed by the assessee though in compliance to a notice issued under section 148(1) of the Act is, in fact, a return filed in compliance to notice under section 139(2) as per language contained in section 148 of the Act which we have extracted above. The provisions of section 153(1)(c) clearly lay down that extended period of one year of limitation will be available to an Assessing Officer from the date of filing of a return or a a revised return under sub-section (4) or (5) of section 139. If we are to agree with the A/C that the extended period of limitation is not available to Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 649. In J.H. Gotla's case it is observed as under :--- " If a strict and literal construction of the statute lead to an absurd result, i.e, a result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation ascertained from the scheme of the legislation then, if another construction is possible a part from the strict literal construction, then that construction should be preferred to the strict literal construction. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Lesiglature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational result. " In the case of C. W.S. (India) Ltd., it is observed as under :--- " Literal construction may be the general rule in construing taxing enactments, but that does not mean that it should be adopted even if it leads to a discriminatory or incongruous result. When a literal interpretation leads to an absurd or unintended result, the language of the statute can be modified to accord with the intention of Parliament and to avoid absurdity. " 10. We, therefore, for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
