Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Sridhar argued that the AO has erred in acting upon the revised return which is barred by limitation and it is not a valid return. Further, he argued that the AO could not have treated the same as revised return and acted upon as contemplated by Section 139(5) of the Act because it was not filed within the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act. In view of this, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessment is liable to be annulled. He further argued that in case of annulment of an assessment, the time-limit for taking further proceedings based on the original return filed by the assessee on 2nd July, 1996 is also barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 153(1) of the Act. To support his arguments, he relied on the followed precedents :

9. In the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra) the dispute is that no revised return can be filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 in a case where the return is filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and the return, if any, filed will be non est. In the present case in hand, the evidence are entirely different and. distinguishable from the facts of the case law of the Hon'ble apex Court cited above. In this case, no doubt that the revised return was barred by limitation and invalid one. The AO cannot take any cognizance of that return. The AO while framing the regular assessment by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, has not taken any cognizance of the revised return but he has taken the information from the revised return to the extent that the assessee is having another residential house from where he has declared the income from house property in the revised return of income and the AO has not acted on the revised return rather the assessment order was passed within the time-limit allowed to the original return. As per the original return, the assessment was to be completed by 31st March', 1999 and the assessment was completed on 19th Feb., 1999. With regard to the case law in the case of Padma Timber Depot (supra), the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a return filed by the assessee after the expiry of the time-limit specified under Section 139(1) of the Act is non est in law. It is not open to the Revenue to take note of such a return and proceed to make an assessment. Here, the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act was a valid return and the revised return was not a valid return and the same is non est. The AO has acted on the original return only. As far as revised return is concerned, the AO has taken as information to complete the assessment on original return. In view of these facts, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee is not applicable to the present case in hand as the facts are entirely different and distinguishable.