TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for our opinion : " 1. Whether the second revised return filed on February 8, 1972, was a valid return under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the time for the completion of assessment was extended up to February 7, 1973, under section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f March, 1972, and the ITO erred in calculating the limitation from the 8th of February, 1972, which was the date on which the second revised return was filed. In substance, it was urged that second revised return could not be filed under s. 139(5), and, as such, the extended period of limitation provided by s. 153(1)(c) was not available in cases where a second revised return is filed. This conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impetus to this argument. It is undoubtedly true that a revised return may be furnished at any time before the assessment is made by person who has furnished a return under s. 139(1) or s. 139(2), and once revised return has been filed under s. 139(5), the original return is supplanted by the revised return, as a result of the: amendment made in the original return as effected by the revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequence results from the view taken by Hari Swarup J. in Dhampur Sugar Mills' case [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All). For, if the original return filed under s. 139(1) is taken to be withdrawn, and the revised return substitutes itself in its place, it becomes return under s. 139(1) This being the position of a return filed under s. 139(5), we feel no difficulty in holding that a second revised return can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
