BIBI GURDARSHAN KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred the following two questions of law for our opinion under s. 66 (1) of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act :

(2.) THE assessee is a lady. She was a partner in a firm styled as National Stores, New Delhi, during the relevant year of account. She had a seven annas share in a rupee in this firm. The assessment year in question is 1948 -49, the previous year being the financial year 1947 -48. No notice under sub -s. (2) of S. 22 of the Act was issued to her to furnish a return of income during the previous year. However, on 3rd Sept., 1951, she voluntarily filed a return for that year. In the printed Form A prescribed for the filing of the return the first column at No. 4 is headed "business, profession or vocation" and part (b) of that head is as follows : "Share of profits in a registered firm", whereas part (c) of the same head is with regard to the share of profits in an unregistered firm or an association of persons. In column 2 of the aforesaid Form the amount of income, profit and gain is to be specified. The assessee in the return filed by her in column 2 of the Form merely indicated her share in the partnership, that is, seven annas in a rupee, but did not specify the amount of profits which accrued to her in lieu of that share. She did indicate that this seven annas share was in the National Stores, New Delhi. It may be mentioned that at the time when this return was filed, the assessment for the year in question had not been completed. A notice under S. 23 (2) of the Act was issued to her by the ITO on the basis of the return filed by her. It was served on her on 20th Dec., 1951. It appears from the record that this notice was complied with, because on 11th Jan., 1952, the following entry appears in the order -sheet in the file of the ITO :

(3.) THE sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the decision of the Tribunal as well as that of the AAC and the ITO to the effect that the returns filed by her on 3rd Sept., 1951, was not a valid return is erroneous in law. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the Department that if we come to the conclusion that the return filed by the assessee on 3rd Sept., 1951, was not an invalid return, then in view of the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569, the first question must be answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, all that we are required to examine is : Whether the return filed by the assessee on the 3rd Sept., 1951, was a valid return.