JAMUNADAS MANNALAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A statement of the case has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench "A", Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), referring the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE assessee appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer that there can be no presumption in law that if interest is charged under Section 139 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer will be deemed to have extended the time-limit for filing the return of income. It was contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on behalf of the assessee that a general extension of time was granted for the assessment year 1967-68 up to August 15, 1967, for filing the return of income. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention and he, accordingly, held that the period of default should be reckoned from August 16, 1967. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner also directed that if the assessee has paid advance tax, then the same should be adjusted in order to determine the tax payable as an unregistered firm according to law. With this modification, the penalty was confirmed. A copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been annexed and marked as annexure "B" forming part of the statement of the case.

(3.) MR. Rameshwar Prasad No. 2, the learned advocate for the assessee, relied on the case of CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433 (SC). In this decision, the Tribunal held that as the Income-tax Officer had levied interest up to the date of the filing of the return, it must be presumed that the Income-tax Officer had extended the time for filing the return after satisfying himself that it was a case for extension of time. Therefore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court agreed with this contention of the assessee. However, at page 439, their Lordships have clearly pointed out that, in that case, the extension was a matter falling within Sub-section (1) of Section 139 and the returns furnished by the assessee must be attributed to that provision and that they were not returns furnished within the contemplation of Sub-section (4) of Section 139 and so they held that the various decisions quoted on page 439 cannot be invoked in the instant case as they were cases dealing with a return filed in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-section (4) Section 139. Thus, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made a distinction that in cases in which the return is filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, the presumption cannot be drawn.