Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The facts in Kulu Valley Transport Co.'s case [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC), were noticed and it was held that that decision does not lay down that a return filed under Section 139(4) can be equated with a return filed under Sub- Section (1) or Sub-section (2) as the Supreme Court in that case considered Section 22(2A) of the Act of 1922 which was a procedural section. The case was thus distinguished. It followed Metal India Products' case [1978] 113 ITR 830 (All) [FB] and Malhotra's case [1981] 129 ITR 379 (Delhi). So far as Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra's case [1982] 134 ITR 352 (All) is concerned, the question involved was whether the second revised return was a valid return under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 139 and further whether it can extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment. The answer was given in the affirmative and it was held that the word "therein" occurring in Sub-section (5) negatives that a revised return may be furnished at any time before the assessment is made by a person who has furnished a return under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or whether once a revised return has been filed it is supplemented by the revised return. The learned judges have observed that in taking this view, they were mindful of the prevalent practice of filing more than one revised return, which the Department has been accepting consistently. Now, we advert to O. P. Malhotra's case [1981] 129 ITR 379 (Delhi), on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee filed a return on March 30, 1965, and a revised return was filed on March 28, 1966. The ITO made an assessment treating the revised return filed on March 28, 1966, as invalid in law as the return filed on March 30, 1965, had not been filed either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 139 of the Act. On appeal, the assessee claimed that the return filed on March 28, 1966, was a valid return. This contention was accepted by the appellate authority and the assessment was set aside and the case was remanded for completing the assessment afresh taking note of the revised returns. A further appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Tribunal. On a reference, the Delhi High Court held that the return filed on March 30, 1965, had to be treated as a return only under Section 139(4) of the Act and Sub- Section (5) of Section 139 does not refer to Sub-section (4) and, therefore, does not entitle the assessee to rectify or revise a return filed under Section 139(4). The levised return filed on March 28, 1966, was held to be invalid in law. It was observed as under (p. 383 of 129 ITR):

(3) that the return provided for under Sub-section (4) of Section 139 stands in a category different from those provided in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) and such a return cannot be revised under Sub-section (5) because such sub-section does not say so;

(4) that a return filed under Section 139(4) cannot be revised under Section 139(5) so as to extend the period of limitation for making the assessment.

17. A contention was raised in Mst. Zulekha Begum v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 560 (Cal), that the subsequent return could not be revised under Section 139(5) of the Act and that Section 139(4) did not authorise filing of more than one return and, therefore, the subsequent return is invalid and the assessment is barred. In support of that, Kulu Valley Transport Co.'s case [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) was referred. In that connection, it was observed by the learned judges constituting the Division Bench that all that the Supreme Court laid down was that a return whether showing either a profit or loss can be filed under Section 22(1) or Section 22(3) of the Act of 1922. In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the subsequent return filed by the assessee was a valid return under Section 139(4) and the assessment made thereunder was within the prescribed time under Section 153, Mst. Zulekha Begum's case [1981] 129 ITR 560 (Cal) was followed in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 722 (Cal) and dissent was expressed with Siddhartha. Publications (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 603 (Delhi) (sic). In that case for the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee did not file his return within the time specified in Section 139(1) nor was a notice issued to him under Section 139(2). He filed a voluntary return on August 13, 1964, and a revised return on February 18, 1969. Similarly for the assessment year 1965-66, he filed a voluntary return on December 11, 1965, and a revised return on July 17, 1969. The assessment for 1964-65 was completed on January 15, 1970. The assessment for the year 1965-66 was completed on July 6, 1970. Penalty Proceedings were initiated. It was contended that the revised returns were invalid, that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation and that the penalty proceedings were invalid. It was held that the revised returns were valid and the assessments had been made under Section 143 and were within the time prescribed under Section 153. Their Lordships disagreed with the finding recorded in Malhotra's case [1981] 129 ITR 379 (Delhi), that in view of Section 297(2)(b) of the Act, the return filed on March 30, 1965, had to be fitted against one or other of the Sub-sections of Section 139 and it could be treated as a return filed by the asses-see only under Section 139(4). It was further held that Sub-section (5) of Section 139 apply only in a case where a person furnishes a return under Sub-section (1) or (2) and that sub-section did not refer to Sub-section (4) and, therefore, does not entitle an assessee to rectify or revise a return filed under Section 139(4).