Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That the learned CIT (Appeals)-VI failed to appreciate that the Revised Return having been filed by the appellant on 27-3-1989 was not a valid revised return in view of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (decision) in the case of Vimalchand v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 593 and Kerala High Court in the case of Eapen Joseph v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 26 and, hence, no valued assessment order could be passed;

5. That the learned CIT (Appeals)-VI has further wrong in not giving any finding that the assessment order alleged to have been passed on 27-3-1990 was not passed within the time allowed under the Statute;

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal on the basis of above grounds along with other grounds.

8. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the original return was filed on 27-1-1987; but before that date the assessee had applied for extension of time in Form No. 6 up to 30th November, 1986. Since no return was filed by 30th November, 1986, a notice under section 139(2) was issued on 20-1-1987 and served on the assessee on 10-2-1987. According to the assessee's counsel, the return filed by the assessee was a return under section 139(4) and a revised return was filed on 27-3-1989. The learned counsel, therefore, pointed out that since the assessment was completed on 27-3-1990 it was barred by limitation by one day, if the revised return is taken to be a valid return. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Singh v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 67/86 Taxman 122 and contended that according to the ratio of this decision, the return voluntarily filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised. According to him, since the assessee has voluntarily filed a return under section 139(4), it was not entitled to file a revised return. Therefore, he argued that the limitation period of one year from the date of revised return under section 153(1)(c) was not available to the Assessing Officer. He further pointed out that the Assessing Officer should have completed the assessment within two years from the date of filing of return, i.e., by 31st March, 1989. According to the learned counsel, since the assessment was completed on 27-3-1990 it was barred by limitation under section 153(1)(c) as well as section 153(1)(a). He further argued that even the limitation prescribed under section 153(1)(b) was not available to the Assessing Officer as the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 were initiated on 27-3-1990, i.e., on the same day and it was received by the assessee on 19-6-1990. The learned counsel further relied on the Supreme Court decision (supra) and contended that since the Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings before 31-3-1989 and did not record his finding to this effect, the extended period of 8 years in the case of concealment of income was also not available to the Assessing Officer. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel for the assessee placed further reliance on the following decisions :

19. Coming to question (ii) as to whether the revised return filed on 27-3-1989 is a valid return under section 139(2), (4) and (5) and if yes what is its effect on limitation for completing the assessment, at the outset itself, we may say that once we have taken a decision, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra), that the revised return is an invalid return, it is a futile exercise and repetition of the subject already dealt with. But, in our opinion, it is necessary to say so in order to meet the arguments and contentions of both the parties. The first contention of the revenue is that the revised return filed by the assessee on 27-3-1989 may be treated as a return under section 139(2), as notice under section 139(2) was already issued on 20-1-1987 and served on the assessee on 10-2-1987, i.e., before the revised return was filed. The assessee's contention is that as this return was not filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice under section 139(2) and it was filed long after that date, it cannot be treated as a return under section 139(2). The second contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has already treated the same as revised return. In our opinion, the contention of the assessee holds good and, therefore, we hold that this revised return cannot be treated as a return under section 139(2), as it was not filed within the time prescribed in the notice issued to the assessee.

28. The third limitation period as envisaged in section 153(1)(c) is of one year from the date of filing of the return or revised return under sub-section (4) or (5) of section 139. As we have already held that there was no valid revised return under section 139(5), we confine our discussion to the return filed under section 139(4) only as discussed above. As the latest one is to be considered, we find that the second return under section 139(4) was filed on 27-3-1989 and the period of one year expired on 26-3-1990. As the period of one year expired on 26-3-1990 and the assessment was completed on 27-3-1990, it is barred by limitation. In our opinion, the contention of the learned DR that the limitation expired on 27-3-1990 does not hold good.