9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 976-77. The question referred to this court is " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was entitled to a period of one year from the second return filed by the assessee on January 5, 1979, under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for completing the assessment ? " The assessment year is 1976-77, for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10, 1978. He filed another return on January 5, 1979. The assessment was completed on January 4, 1980. As the assessment year was 1976-77, the normal period for completing the assessment was up to March 31, 1979. The assessment on January 4, 1980, it is contended is beyond the extended period of one year available from May 10, 1978, being the date on which the first return was filed. The date of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 139(4) of the Act and is invalid. If it is so, the Income-tax Officer cannot have an extended period of one year from the date of the said invalid return. He should have completed the assessment within one year from May 10, 1978, on which day the return under section 139(4) of the Act was filed, This position is recognised in Eapen Joseph v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 26 (Ker). This court observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. So, it has to be held that the Act impliedly bars or forbids the filing of a subsequent or revised return in other cases. The above view has been followed by another Bench of this court in CIT v. A. Yunus Kunju [1994] 206 ITR 704. In the instant case, the assessee filed return under section 139(4) of the Act on May 10, 1978. The assessee could not file a revised return as contemplat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
