LexKUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ETC. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. ETC.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL
APRIL 23, 1996
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND.K.T. THOMAS, .l.l.J
Income Tax Act, 7967: Section.s 739(1), (2), (4), (5) a11d 753( l)(c).
A
B
Income Ta.\-Ret!lln-Revised ret!lln-Fi/i11g of-Validit;-AYI 7964-
C
65 and 1965-66-Person filing retllln under S. 139(4) not entitled lo file
revised retum under S 139(5)-Suclz revised 1~twn was invalid and not
contemplated under S. 139(5)-Hence, period of limitation under S.
153( l)(c) for completio11 of assessment 11ot applicable.
Income Ta.l-S. 153(l)(b) and S. 271(1)(c)-Scope and applicability D
of-Expression "in a case falling within clause (c) of .\'lib-section ( 1) of
Section 271" occuning in S. 153( l){b)-Meaning of-Held: meant case in
lvhich lvithin the prescribed period of liniitatiun the ITO had initiated
proceedings under S.27 J ( 1 )( c) or recorded and conummicatcd to the asscssee
his opinion that the case fell within S. 271 (J) ( c )-{Jtlwwisc, the larger peliod E
for making as.re.rnnent prmidcd by S. 153( 1) (b) ·would not be applicable.
The appellant-assessee did not furnish returns for AYs 1964-65 and
1965-66 within the period prescribed by Section 139(1) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. No notice under Section 139(2) of the Act was served upon him.
Taking advantage of Section 139(4) of the Act he filed a return each for
F
AYs 1964· 65 and 1965-66 and also filed revised returns for the said AYs.
In both the cases the Income Tax Officer made the assessment orders
beyond the period or four years prescribed by Section t53(l)(a)(i) or the
Act but within one year from the date of filing of the revised returns as
prescribed by Section 153(1)(c) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer also G
initiated penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act in respect
of both the AY s.
The questions arising in the instant case were the validity of the
revised returns filed by the appellant-assessee and the validity of the
assessment orders made by the Income Tax Officer by invoking Section
1-1
657
658
SC"PREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
153(l)(c) of the Act whkh prescribed alternate period of limitation for
completion of assessment.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The very fact that the right lo furnish a revised return
B
has been given under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a
person who has filed a return under Section 139(1) or (2) of the Act means
by necessary implication that such a right is denied to a person who files
the return under Section l39(4). In the instant case the period allowed for
making the assessment is four years from the end of the relevant assess-
c ment year as provided by Section 153(l)(a)(i). Section 153(l)(c) provides
an alternate period of limitation. The High Court's opinion that the
language employed in Sec1ion 153(l)(c) contemplates the filing of a revised
return under Section 139(4) is not correct. Section 153(l)(c) employs both
the expressions 'return' and 'revised return' and refers to both the sub-
sections (4) and (5) of Section 139. Reasonably read it means the return
D filed under sub-section (41 and the revised return filed under sub- section
(5) of Section 139. It would not be reasonable to construe the said clause
as indirectly conferring a right which is not conferred directly by Section
139(5) of the Act. Therefore, no revised return can be filed under Section
139(5) in a case where the return is filed under Section 139(4). Once this
E
is so the revised returns ti~ed by the assessee for both the assessment years
i.e. 1964-65 and 1965-66 were not valid in law and could not have been
treated and acted upon as revised returns contemplated by Section 139(5)
of the Act. It means that Section 153(l)(c) of the Act was not attracted in
the instant case. Hence, the assessments made beyond the prescribed
F
period of four years (but within five years) are not saved by Section
153(1)(c) of the Act. [665-F-H; 666-A-F; 669-F]
0.P. Malhotra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 129 I.T.R. 379 (Del);
Dr. S.B. Blwrfiava v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 136 I.T.R. 559 (All);
Vimal Chand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 155 l.T.R. 593 (Raj) and
G Eapen Joseph '" Commis.1ioner of Income Tax, 168 I.T.R. 26 (Ker), ap-
proved.
2.1. The words "in a case falling within Section 27l(l)(c) of the Act"
mean that \\ithin the period of four year (or whatever the applicable period
of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.