TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had filed the return in time, and thereafter had filed a rectified return, he could be permitted to do so under the said provision. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the Legislature in its wisdom had intended to give the benefits of filing a revised return only to those persons who fall within the four corners of section 139 sub sections (1) and (2) of the said Act. If the legislature had intended to also give the same benefits to an assessee who had not furnished the return within time, it would have said so in sub clause (5). The very fact that sub clause 4 is not referred to in sub clause (5) clearly indicates the intention of the legislature. See Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (By Legal Representatives) Versus CIT [1996 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that the rectified return was in fact a new return. Thus under section 139 (5), it is not open for the appellant to either rectify or revise his return after there was a delay in filing a said return in time. Viewed from any angle, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT (Appeals) - against assessee. - Tax Appeal No.13 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2013 - V.M. Kanade And U.V. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was permitted to file additional compilation of five documents namely: Deed of Partnership dated 2/9/1991, Certificate of Registration of Firm dated 6/9/19991, Deed of Rectification dated 9/4/1992, Letter dated 28/7/1994 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Margao and the letter dated 20/10/1994 addressed by M/s. Menezes Fernandes Enterprises. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in coming to the conclusion that the return filed by the appellant was a revised return. He submitted that it ought to have held that the said return was a valid return since it was a rectified return and it was sought before the intimation under section 143 (1) (a) was served on the assessee and as such, it could not be said that the appellant had filed a revised return. It was then contended that the Tribunal had erred in relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (dead) Through LRs etc., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal" reported in AIR 1996 S.C 1895. He submitted that the Supreme Court had not decided the issue as to the distinction between a revised return and a rectifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 139 (1) and (2). She invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Jagdish Chandra" (supra). 6. After hearing both the learned counsel at length and the arguments, submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Before taking into consideration the rival submissions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions and more particularly, the provision of section 139 of the said Act which read as under: "139. Returns of income - (1) Every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to Income -Tax shall furnish a return of this income or the income of such other person during the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. (a) In the case of every person whose total income, or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act, includes any income from business or profession, before the expiry of six months from the end of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is applicable in respect of applications which are filed under section 139 sub clause 1 and 2. It does not make any reference to a delayed return or a return filed after the stipulated time, as envisaged under section 139 (4). 8. In view of the above, the benefits of sub clause 5 of Section 139 would not apply to the applications which are filed under section 139 (4) of the said Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had laid much emphasis on the provisions of sub clause 5 and, more particularly, on the last portion which reads as under: " he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier". It was contended that in the present case admittedly, the order of assessment was not served on the appellant and, therefore, the provisions of sub clause 5 were clearly attracted in favour of the appellant. We are unable to accept the said submission when sub clause 5 has to be read in context with the other provisions of the said section. In the present case, it is an admitted position where the appellant had not furnished the return within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our years from the end of the relevant assessment year as provided by Section 153(1) (a)(i). Section 153 (1)(c) provides an alternate period of limitation. It says that if the assessment is made before "the expiry of one year from the date of the filing of return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 139" it would yet be within limitation notwithstanding the fact that it may be barred under other provisions contained in subsection(1) of Section 153. The High Court is or the opinion that language employed in clause (c) of Section 153(1) contemplates the filing of a revised return even in a case where original return is filed under sub-section (4). We find it difficult to agree. Clause (c) employ both the expressions return and revised return and refers to both the sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 139. Reasonably read it means the return filed under sub-section (4) and the revised return file under sub-section(5) of Section 139. It would not be reasonable to construe the said clause as indirectly conferring a right which is not conferred directly by sub-section (5) of Section 139. The High Court has drawn a distinction between a revised return and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
