9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench Amritsar arising out of its order dated August 27,1990 in W T A Nos 14 to 20(ASR)/1987 in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1973-74. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that a return filed under section 15 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, could not be subsequently revised in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filing of the revised returns. The assessee went in appeal and the assessments were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. Fresh assessments were made by the Wealth-tax Officer on June 30, 1983, which were objected to by the assessee by filling the appeals before the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jalandhar, who vide his consolidated order dated March 27, 1986, quashed the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kerala High Court in Eapen Joseph v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 26. The above judgments were taking the view that a belated return filed could not be revised and consequently the same being invalid could not have been treated and acted upon as revised return. The view on the other side was by the Calcutta High Court in Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 722 and Balish Singh and Co. v. CIT[ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. B. Bhargava v. CIT [1982]136 ITR 559, the Rajasthan High Court in Vimaichand v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 593 and the Kerala High Court in Eapen Joseph v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 26 were approved whereas the view taken by the Calcutta High court in Kumar Jagadish Chandra's case [1982] 137 ITR 722, was reversed and it was held that a belated return filed under section 139(4) of the Act could not be revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
