TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s need be noticed in order to appreciate the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue in this reference. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69 and the assessee was required to file a return of income by June 30, 1968. The said return was filed on November 10, 1970, though in the statement of the case, it has been stated to be November 10, 1971. However, having regard to the date of the order of assessment wherein the correct date has been stated, we have, with the consent of the parties, taken this date of filing the return as November 10, 1970. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 51,759. It is common ground that the assessee had paid interest under section 139(8) till the date of filing of the return. However, in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the question is covered by the decision of this court in Damjibhai and Brothers' case, which was not a case of payment of advance tax by the said firm and it was a case of tax to be paid on the self-assessment by the assessee. In the second place, the learned advocate urged that having regard to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433, there is a legal presumption that the time for filing the return was deemed to have been extended on the payment of the interest under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 and, therefore, there was no question of any delay in filing the return and the condition precedent for invoking the power to levy penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee because otherwise the Income-tax Officer could not have charged interest, and that, therefore, no penalty was leviable. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held as under (headnote) : "The time allowed for furnishing a voluntary return is the time specified in section 139(1)of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When the Income-tax Officer extends the date for furnishing the return under proviso (iii) to section 139(1), he does so in the exercise of authority conferred by the statute and the additional time available to the assessee consequent upon such extension is, for all relevant purposes, of the same character and as effective as the statutory period specifically enacted by Parliament. It constitutes an integral part of the time allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have extended the time specified by Parliament in section 139 unless the interest is levied on the assessee, and on being satisfied about the sufficiency of the ground for granting the extension. The fact that the interest has been charged raises a presumption that the time has been extended by the Income-tax Officer in exercise of his powers under the relevant proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139. The learned advocate appearing for the Revenue, however, urged that this contention had not been pressed before the income-tax authorities or for that matter before the Tribunal and if that has been raised, the Department could have rebutted this presumption. It is no doubt true that this contention was not urged at the lower level. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
