Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While differing with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court, our learned brothers themselves were of the opinion that there could be successive returns filed under Section 139(4). They also observed that the assessee could file another return under Section 139(4) as long as the period for completing the assessment under Section 153 had not expired. They also observed that to hold that there should not be any subsequent return under Section 139(4) even within the period of limitation was not warranted by the scheme of the Act. An assessee who had filed the return under Section 139(4) could correct it by filing another return under Section 139(4) within the period prescribed. This would not be an invalid return. The only thing that the Special Bench, therefore, decided was that when the time limit for making the assessment had already expired, there could be no assessment and, therefore, the assessee could not file a return under Section 139(4). Any revised return filed by the assessee after that period would be an invalid return. If a return is invalid, naturally the ITO would not get any period of limitation from the filing of such a return. But as long as the returns were within the period within which an assessment could be made and a return filed according to law, naturally these will be valid either as returns or as revised returns and, therefore, to that extent the ITO would be at liberty to treat such returns and make assessment within the prescribed period of limitation. The Special Bench never decided anything beyond that.

10. Now the issue is whether the WTO could act upon those returns, which were filed beyond the time provided under Section 15. Conceptually, textually and procedurally there does not appear to be any difference between the procedure prescribed under the 1957 Act or under the 1961 Act, except for the minor changes in the language used in regard to the procedure prescribed for filing of returns, revised returns and for making of assessments as well as reopening of assessments it was more or less the same. It appeared to me that the provisions of Section 139(4) and (5) were written into Section 15. Thus unless so a return is held to be a return validly filed within the meaning of Section 14 the question of revising that return cannot arise. A somewhat similar situation arose under the 1961 Act, which was resolved by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vimalchand (supra).