LAWS(KAR)-1962-8-16

VENKATAMMA Vs. FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On August 06, 1962
VENKATAMMA Appellant
V/S
FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE-II, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the facts of this case come within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down that a return in answer to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act can, under section 22(3), be filed at any time before assessment and for this, there is no limit of time. It further laid down that where in respect of any year a return has been voluntarily submitted before assessment the Income-tax Officer cannot choose to ignore the return and any notice of reassessment and consequent assessment under section 34 ignoring the return is invalid.

(2.) THE material facts of this case are as follows : THE petitioner was a manufacturer of handloom goods. According to her own showing she was manufacturing handloom goods for over 25 years prior to 1958. But at no time she submitted any return under section 22 of the Income-tax Act. On January 25, 1958, she submitted a return of her income for the assessment year 1950-51, the previous year ending on March 31, 1950. THE Income-tax Officer did not and admittedly he could not proceed to assess her on the basis of her return. He took steps under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and assessed her escaped income. THE question is whether the assessment under section 34 is a valid assessment in view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited above. In the case before the Supreme Court the return had been submitted within the period prescribed under section 34(3), whereas in the present case, the return was submitted long after the period prescribed therein. Section 22(3) says :

(3.) WE are in respectful agreement with the above conclusion. Otherwise, section 34 can be made ineffective by purporting to have recourse to section 22(3) after the period of limitation mentioned in section 34.