TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the following questions: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the return under section 139(5) is not a valid return ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the return under section 139(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome shown was Rs. 19,048 and in this return the status was shown to be that of a firm and a statement of accounts was submitted with a note that these accounts have been maintained on cash basis. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the revised return as, according to him, the accounts, which were maintained during the accounting year which appear from the statement of accounts and balance-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis, the assessee cannot be permitted to rewrite the accounts after two years and furnish fresh accounts on cash basis. On this decision of the Tribunal, it appears that, at the instance of the assessee, the present reference has been made. The facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that originally when the return was filed by the assessee, a statement of accounts and a balancesheet we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to follow a particular system of accounts, if during the accounting year for which the assessment was to be made, accounts were made on a particular basis, the assessee cannot be permitted to rewrite the account books on any other different basis and on this ground the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not accept the revised return under section 139( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on a particular system of accounts. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed under section 139(5) was not valid return. In this view, therefore, our answer to the questions referred to us are: (1) The Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the return under section 139(5) was not a valid return. (2) In view of our answer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
