TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the above assessment year was Rs. 4,97,542, much above the exemption limit available for income-tax purposes. Under s. 22(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the assessee should have filed its return of income within period of sixty days from the date of the publication of a general notice issued on or before the first day of May, 1961. It is, therefore, common ground that the return should have been filed some time in June, 1961. It was, however, filed only on 4th April, 1962. The assessment was made in due course and, thereafter, the ITO initiated proceedings for the levy of a penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This was because under s. 297(2)(g) of the Act of 1961 the penalty in a case where the assessment had been complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also be held to have been complied with. The Additional Commissioner was aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal and it is at his instance that the Tribunal has referred the following question for our decision : " Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that for submission of the return for the assessment year 1961-62, on April 4, 1962, no penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 ? We must also mention that the assessee attempted to persuade the Tribunal to refer certain other questions regarding the justifiability of impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in detail. In our opinion, it is sufficient to refer to the Full Bench decisions of two High Courts which have considered the matter in some detail. The Orissa High Court has considered the identical issue in CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia [1976] 103 ITR 613 [FB]. It had been argued before the Full Bench, inter alia, that as the assessee had filed the return within the time allowed under s. 139(4), it should be deemed, by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518, to have filed the return within the time allowed under s. 139(1) and, consequently, no penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was imposable and that s. 139(4) was in the nature of a proviso to s. 139(1) for all purposes und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalised while another person filing a revised return under s. 139(5) a day before the assessment is made would escape penalty, and (5) in s. 22(3) of the 1922 Act there was initially a clause to the following effect:" and any return so made shall be deemed to be a return made in due time under this section." This clause was omitted by s. 24 of Central Act 7 of 1939, which indicates that the Legislature clearly intended that default in time was not condoned in the case of delayed returns. The Supreme Court did not notice the omission of this clause in, Kulu Valley's case [1970] 77 ITR 518 as it did not pertain to a penalty, proceeding, but was concerned with the carrying forward of a loss. The Allahabad High Court discussed the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,(SC) is applicable to a case of this type. He points out that the Supreme Court was concerned in Kulu Valley's case [1970] 77 ITR 518 with the interpretation of ss. 22(1) and 22(2A) and sub-s. (3) of s. 22 of the 1922 Act and that it had categorically held that if a return is filed within the time specified in s. 22(3), such a return must be considered as having been filed within the time allowed under sub-s. (1) of the above section. He contended that the mere fact that the question now arises in the context of a penalty proceeding would not justify a departure from the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, he contended, in considering a penalty provision, this court should incline in favour of applying the interpret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lahabad and Orissa High Courts, the result of such a construction will be to render a part of s. 271(1)(a) completely redundant and otiose. The principle of statutory construction is well settled that no statute should be interpreted in such a manner as to render any provision completely meaningless or redundant. It appears to us that, having regard to the context of s. 271(1)(a), the reference to sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 139 in that clause should be confined only to returns filed within the time prescribed in sub-ss. (1) and (2) and cannot be extended to a return which may be filed validly but under sub-s. (4) of such section. We do not think that it is necessary to elaborate the point further as it is already covered by a series of decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
