Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (9) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e on April 22, 1976, i.e., the date on which the assessment was framed by the Income-tax Officer, the time-limit for completing the assessment on the basis of the revised return filed on April 7, 1976, had not expired, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment and directing the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment according to law ?" Shortly stated, the facts are as under : The assessment years involved in this reference petition, are 1968-69 and 1973-74. The material facts for 1968-69 in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on February 2, 1972, in response to a notice under section 148 issued on November 8, 1971. In the assessment proceedings, a draft assessment order under section 144B w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals). The Revenue's contention that the facts in Hoby Centre Pvt. Ltd. were distinguishable did not appeal to the Tribunal. The further contention that an assessee having filed a return under section 148 cannot file a revised return under section 139(5) was also negatived by the Tribunal. The last contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the revised return virtually being similar to the earlier return except for a marginal variation of Rs. 400 could be deemed to have been acted upon, and the validity of the assessment cannot be questioned. This also did not find favour with the Tribunal as the Income-tax Officer, as evident from the assessment order, consciously ignored the revised return. The Tribunal has taken the view th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any cognizance of the revised return and having completed the assessment with reference to the earlier return, stripped himself of initial or inherent jurisdiction to reassess. It is not the case that the issue of the notice under section 148 is in any manner questioned. There was no challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction to assess under section 147. The jurisdictional facts furnishing the conditions precedent for reassessment remained uncontested. Once jurisdiction is initiated, we do not perceive any reason how the non-cognizance of the subsequent revised return on the basis of particular view taken by the Officer in respect of the revised return can destroy the initial jurisdiction which the notice under section 148 had activated. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... There could be another situation where the assessment order might have been declared a nullity. Such eventuality would have happened, if it were the situation that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was barred by the limitation of time. Here the order was passed within the limitation prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 153 read with Explanation (1)(iv). What the assessee pleads, if held to be correct, would have extended the limitation by one year from April 7, 1976. Therefore, there cannot be any question of limitation of time barring the completion of the assessment. Now, we are addressing ourselves to the first question as regards the validity of the revised return filed by the assessee on April 7, 1976. The revised retu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a purpose ulterior to the purpose of the fiction. The fiction in section 148 is merely a link with sections 143 and 144 and all other ramifying provisions for implementing the reassessment. The fiction has nothing to do with the filing of the return. Section 148 itself is enough to take care of the filing of a return. This is evident from the fiction "as if it were a notice under section 139(2)". Section 139(2) steps in not for empowering the Officer to call for a return but to follow up the issue of the notice in the same manner a notice under section 139(2) is pursued. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Though the second question does not survive for answer, yet it by itself raises .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates