PUREWAL AND ASSOCIATES Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court:

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee was to submit the return for the assessment year 1988 89 on or before 31 7 1988. This return was actually filed on 1 2 1989 wherein loss of Rs. 66,62,817 was shown. The assessing officer held that the return was non est in view of the provisions of Section 139(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the relevant time. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the assessing officer and the loss return was treated to be invalid return and the appeal was dismissed. The learned Tribunal also rejected the contention of the assessee and decided the case in favour of the revenue. Section 139(10) was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986 with effect from 1 4 1986. After the amendment, the said section reads as follows:

(3.) THE return filed by the petitioner was not in response to notice under Sub section (2) of Section 148; (ii) the petitioner firm is a company and not a partnership firm; (iii) the return in question is not in terms of Section 139{3) which also prescribes that the return should be filed in time; (iv) the assessee is not holding property for charitable or religious purposes; (v) the assessee has not furnished the return under Sub section (4B) in respect of a political party; and (vi) the return has not been filed claiming refund under Section 237.