TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion urged on behalf of the petitioner has to fail. - - - - - Dated:- 21-7-1971 - Judge(s) : K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY., G. K. GOVINDA BHAT. JUDGMENT GOVINDA BHAT J.- The Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. is the petitioner in this batch of seven writ petitions. They relate to the assessments made on the petitioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called "the Act", for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70. Assessments for all the years except for 1969-70 were made under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, and for the assessment year 1969-70 the assessment was under section 143(3). The previous year of the petitioner ends on the 30th day of June. Therefore, under sub-section (1) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, without giving a hearing, rejected the application. On September 2, 1970, the petitioner preferred the above writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the levy of interest under section 139 and the order of the 2nd respondent passed without affording an opportunity of being heard. The first contention of Sri G. Chander Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the levy of interest under section 139 is permissible only in cases where the assessee makes an application in the prescribed manner for extension of time to file the return and not in cases where the assessee files the return within the time fixed in the notice issued under section 148 or section 139(2). His second contention was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for furnishing the return, whether fized originally or on extension, falls beyond the 30th day of September or, as the case may be, the 31st day of December of the assessment year, the provisions of subclause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply." (Underlining is ours). The first part of the proviso empowers the Income-tax Officer to extend the date for furnishing of the return on an application made by the assessee. If the assessee is not able to submit his return within the date specified in the notice under section 139(2) of the Act, he may make an application to the Income-tax Officer for extension of time and the Income-tax Officer is empowered to extend the date for the furnishing of the return. Similar power is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 139(2) or section 148, as the case may be, falls beyond the said date. Sri Chander Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, brought to our notice an unreported decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1934 of 1968, Kishanlal Haricharan v. Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Nizamabad, wherein it is stated that : "Where the assessee does not request for time for submitting a return, sub-clause (iii) of the proviso of sub-section (1) of section 139 has no application. In the said case, the assessee did not at any time furnish a return of his income. Section 139 as it stood before its amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, did not empower the levy of interest where the assessment is completed without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
