TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the assessee/applicant contended that the assessment is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is it should have been completed within the expiry of one year from the date of filing the return, i.e., before May 10, 1975, and the return filed on March I 1, 1975, was an invalid one and should be ignored. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee represented before the Income-tax Officer that the return filed on March 11, 1975, is a revised return and received some benefits. Thereafter, it is not possible for the assessee to go back on his earlier representation and contend that what was filed is not a revised return at all and that it should be ignored. He is estopped from contending so. The Appellate Tribunal went further and held that even on merits, there is no merit in the plea. The voluntary return filed in this case under section 139(4) of the Act is really a return filed within the extended time-limit and the assessee has really complied with the provisions of either section 139(1) or section 139(2) of the Act, and section 139(5) enables a revised return to be filed in cases where the return is filed under section 139(1) or 139(2). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the assessment order is dated March 6, 1976, it is effective and valid only when communicated or served on the assessee. That was done only on August 28, 1976. If that is considered to be the effective date, when the order of assessment is made for the purpose of section 153(1) of the Act, it is more than two years from the end of the assessment year under section 153(1)(a)(iii) of the Act and also one year beyond the date of the return and also the revised return and so even the extended period under section 153(1)(c) of the Act will not be available at all. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the second return filed on March 11, 1975, is an additional or the final return and that it will be one filed under section 139(4) of the Act and so the assessment made in this case within one year from the date of the said final return is competent and valid under section 153(1)(c) of the Act. In the alternative, it was contended that the Income-tax Officer, while making the assessment, referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and so the period of eight years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea based on section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held in para 2 of the order that the time-limit under section 153(1)(b) of the Act will apply and so the assessee's plea that the assessment is barred by limitation is untenable. The Appellate Tribunal adverted to this plea in para 3 of its order. Either the said plea was not pressed at the time of hearing or the Appellate Tribunal did not adjudicate on that question. The Appellate Tribunal sustained the assessment only under section 153(1 )(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessment was made within one year from the date of the revised return. If the Revenue was aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal in failing to hold that the assessment can be sustained under section 153(1)(b) of the Act, the Revenue should have taken proceedings for referring the said question of law for the decision of this court. It did not do so. The Appellate Tribunal sustained the assessment only under section 153(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessment was made within one year from the date of the revised return. The assessee has challenged the same in this reference. In such a proceeding, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides for filing a revised return (subsequent return) under section 139(5) of the Act, only in cases where the return is filed under section 139(1) or (2) 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. In this view, there cannot be any subsequent or revised return in a case where the original return is filed under section 139(4) of the Act. (See vide Ramchandra's case, AIR 1975 SC 915 at p. 918, para 25; also A.R. Antulay's case [1984] 2 SCC 500 at p. 523, para 22). The return filed on March 11, 1975, cannot be considered to be a revised return filed under section 139(5) of the, Act. The return under section 139(4) of the Act having been filed on May 10, 1974, the subsequent return filed on March 11, 1975, is an invalid return. It has no legal consequences. It has to be ignored. It cannot extend the period of limitation contemplated by section 153(1)(c) of the Act. In taking this view, we are fortified by the following decisions 0. P. Malhotra v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 379 (Delhi); Dr. S. B. Bhargava v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 559 (All) and Vimalchand v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 593 (Raj). Counsel for the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
