VIMALCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal" herein), has referred the following question for our opinion:

(2.) M/s. Manakchand Laxmichand, Sirohi, is a registered firm. Its partners are Laxmichand and Vimalchand. The previous year relevant to the assessment year ended on October 31, 1970, in the case of the firm as well as its partners. The three assessees, namely, the registered firm and its partners, Laxmichand and Vimalchand, were to file returns by June 30, 1971. No returns were filed within that time. It appears from the order of the Tribunal dated August 27, 1976, that no notice was issued under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short "the Act"), to the assessees. Subsequently, the assessee-firm filed a return on March 11, 1974, declaring an income of Rs. 34,560. The assessment of the assessee-firm was completed on October 10, 1974, on a total income of Rs. 43,117. Laxmichand, one of the partners of the firm, filed a return under Section 139(4) on August 29, 1971, declaring an income of Rs. 32,292. Subsequently, another return (the alleged revised return) was filed on March 13, 1974, declaring a total income of Rs. 32,348. The assessment was completed on November 6, 1974, on an income of Rs. 40,119. Vimalchand, the other assessee (partner of the firm), filed a return under Section 139(4) of the Act, on August 29, 1971, in which an income of Rs. 17,265 was shown. Another return (the alleged revised return) was filed on March 13, 1974, declaring an income of Rs. 17,327. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) completed the assessment, vide order dated November 6, 1974, on a sum of Rs. 17,327. The assessees went in appeal.

(3.) SECTION 139 of the Act corresponds to Sub-sections (1), (2), (2A), (3) and (5) of SECTION 22 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (No. XI of 1922) (for short "the Act of 1922"). We may notice the difference between the two provisions, which are relevant for our purpose,