KAREEMSONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this court referred this case to the Special Bench, after doubting the correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench; the said earlier decision is in S. Natarajan v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 882 (Mys).

(2.) TWO question were referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which read as follows :

(3.) THE Revenue contends that, when a notice is issued under section 148 and a return is not filed within the period stipulated in the said notice, any return filed thereafter cannot claim the status of a return under section 139(4), even if the return filed was within the period prescribed by section 139(4). Mr. Chanderkumar, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended before us that a proceedings initiated by a notice under section 148 is a proceeding for the benefit of the Revenue and the notice issued to the assessee under section 148 cannot be treated for all purposes under the Act as a notice issued under section 139(2); since the assessee failed to file a return under section 139(1), the assessee cannot take advantage of a proceeding initiated under section 148 to claim a loss to be determined thereunder, so that it can be carried forward under section 72 read with section 80; learned counsel urged that the assessee cannot take advantage of his own default in failing to file the return at an appropriate time earlier to have the loss determined; the object of section 147, it was contended, was to assessee the escaped income and the proceeding thereunder is solely for the benefit of the Revenue.