9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-1982. The assessment was completed on 29-3-1982. The ITO did not treat the return filed on 25-2-1982 as a revised return. The ITO was of the opinion that the original return was not filed by the assessee either under section 139(1) or under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 961 (' the Act ') and, therefore, the return filed by the assessee cannot be taken as a return under section 139(5). 2. The assessee took the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals), after quoting the provisions of section 139(5), dealt with the facts and law and ultimately rejected the argument of the assessee in the following words : " The appellant's accounting year ended on 31-12-1978 and, therefore, the return for this year w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised return of the assessee. 4. The departmental representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue and further supplemented his argument by placing reliance in O.P. Malhotra v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 379 (Delhi). 5. The return was filed by the legal heir of the assessee after the death of Shri C.R. Das on 23-1-1979. The return was filed on 5-3-1981. Subsequently, it was found that there were certain mistakes and the assessee had not disclosed properly the income from business and house property and, consequently, a revised return was filed on 25-2-1982. The assessment was completed by the ITO though on 29-3-1982 but the assessment was completed on the basis of the return filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not correct or complete and substitutes the same by a revised return which, according to him, is correct and complete. The effective return for the purposes of assessment is thus the return which is ultimately filed by an assessee on the basis of which he wants his income to be assessed. Sub-section (5) is a part of section 139. The statute itself provides for the filing of a revised return. Section 143 does not specifically deal with the return filed either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of section 139. It deals generally with the return filed under section 139. It is true that sub-section. (5) specifically mentions sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) but does not mention the case of a return filed under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim was made by the assessee through a letter before the assessment was made, the ITO could not have ignored the claim of the assessee. The claim might not have been accepted but the claim must have been considered by the ITO and thereby the assessee would have got a right to go in further appeal. If the claim of the assessee can be considered on the strength of a letter, there is no reason that the claim of the assessee cannot be considered when the same has been filed through a return and before the assessment is made. Under the above circumstances, the return filed by the assessee on 25-2-1982 was a revised return as well as it was also a claim before the ITO and, therefore, the ITO should have acted upon the return of the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
