TMI Blog1973 (6) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant facts in Writ Petition No. 916 of 1972. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 916 of 1972 is a partner of the firm of Messrs. M. Nagappa, Contractors, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1967-68, the firm of which the petitioner is a partner, filed its return on August 1, 1967. The firm thereafter filed a revised return on October 18, 1969, admitting a larger income. The petitioner filed his return on October 28, 1969. The petitioner's return was due on June 30, 1967, under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The revised return filed by the firm was accepted and an order of assessment was made. Based on the said assessment order, the petitioner's share income was also assessed. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay in filing the returns and consequently no interest should be charged. It is common ground that the returns filed by the petitioners of their share income were under sub-section (4) of section 139. In support of his contention, the learned counsel sought reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. That was a case under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Grover J., who delivered the majority judgment, stated thus: "It can well be said that section 22(3) is merely a proviso to section 22(1). Thus, a return submitted at any time before the assessment is made is a valid return. In considering whether a return made is within time sub-section (1) of section 22 must be read a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the said provision. It was next urged by Sri Srinivasan that there is power in the Income-tax Officer to reduce or waive the interest payable by any person under any provision of section 139 in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed and that, in the instant case, neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Commissioner has considered the case for waiver in the light of the decision of this court in Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1970, decided on 14-12-1971). In the said case, it has been held by this court that if a partner who has no income apart from the share income does not file his return within the due date, the delay in filing the return till the firm fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was due on June 30, 1967, and there was sufficient cause for not filing the return within June 30, 1967. That basis of the decision of the Commissioner, in our opinion, is not right. Sri Srinivasan had, however, to concede that this aspect of the matter was not urged before the Commissioner. But the facts are undisputed and the law is laid down by this Court is binding on the Commissioner. In these circumstances, we quash the orders of the Commissioner impugned in these writ petitions so far as they relate to the levy of interest under section 139(1) of the Act and further direct the Commissioner to consider the sufficiency of the cause for not filing the returns within the due dates in the light of the statement of the law contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
