NANJAPPA TEXTILES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this reference under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to :

(2.) THE relevant facts are in a very short or narrow compass. The assessee is a firm, which was served with a notice under S. 139(2) of the Act on 20th July, 1964, in relation to the asst. yr. 1964 -65, calling for the submission of the return of its income. The return should have been filed on or before 19th Aug., 1964. The assessee filed the return on 14th Dec., 1964, disclosing an income of Rs. 26,593. On 5th Oct., 1968, it filed a revised return admitting an income of Rs. 27,900. The assessment was completed on 22nd Sept., 1969.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Srinivasan (Bangalore Bar) for the assessee was that the return filed on 14th Dec., 1964, being itself a belated return could only be treated as a return under S. 139(4) and that the subsequent return filed on 5th Oct., 1968, could not revise such a return, as a revised return is contemplated only in cases where a return is filed under sub - s. (1) or Sub -S. (2) of s. 139. In other words, his point was that the return filed under S. 139(4) cannot be equated to a return under Sub -S. (1) or sub - S. (2) of S. 139 and that it had an independent existence. The assessment made on 22nd Sept., 1969, being beyond the period of four years contemplated by s. 153(1)(a), the assessment would be valid only if the return filed on 5th Oct., 1968, is treated to be a proper return under S. 139(5). If the return dt. 5th Oct., 1968, is not a valid return as contended by him, then it is not disputable that the assessment would be clearly time barred. We have, therefore, to find out whether the return dt. 5th Oct., 1968, is a valid return or not.