SURAM CHAND RAHLAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of the asst. year 1982 -83, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed by the assessee on 12th March, 1985, was a valid return under S. 139(4) and the extended period of limitation in terms of S. 153(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 - The Tribunal has found that the return filed by the assessee on 12th March, 1985, being a return filed within the time prescribed under S. 139(4)(b)(iii) was a valid return as well as a valid revised return under S. 139(4) and, therefore, the ITO could complete the assessment within one year of 12th March, 1985, which actually he did in terms of S. 153(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

(2.) IN a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 67 (SC), it has been held that no revised return can be filed under Sub -S. (5) of S. 139 in a case where the return is filed under S. 139(4). Once this is so, the revised returns filed by the assessee for both the said assessment years were invalid in law and could not have been treated and acted upon as revised returns contemplated by Sub -S. (5) of S. 139 and consequently S. 153(1) (c) could not be attracted.

(3.) IN this case, the first return was filed on 30th Sept., 1982, that is, beyond the period prescribed under S. 139(1). This return was also not pursuant to notice under S. 139(2) and, therefore, it could not be revised under S. 139(5). In view of the decision of the Supreme Court the question deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee. We may, however, note the contention of Mr. Gupta that the return filed on 30th Sept., 1982, was non est as it was only a provisional return and a note had been appended to that return that it was filed provisionally in the absence of books. The submission of Mr. Gupta is that the return filed on 30th Sept., 1982, being no return in the eyes of law, the return filed on 12th March, 1985, was the first valid return under S. 139(4) and, therefore, the assessment was completed within the limitation. It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta since the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the return filed on 30th Sept., 1982, was a valid return though the Tribunal held that a revised return could be filed relying upon the decision of this Court in O. P. Malhotra vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 379 (Del). That aspect in Malhotras cas, has not been approved by the Supreme Court in Sinhas case (supra). For the aforesaid reasons we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.