2004 (12) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

(i) Whether, when a second revised return was filed u/s 139(5) within the specified period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment order (year), the Assessing Officer is obliged to adjust the demand made u/s 143(1)(a) raised on the basis of the earlier returns and whether the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the case without considering the legal position? (ii) Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on January 7, 1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557, the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on January 7, 1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation? - Both the questions are answered in the negative in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Obligation of Assessing Officer to adjust demand based on revised return
2. Validity of second revised return and carry forward of losses

Analysis:
1. Obligation of Assessing Officer to adjust demand based on revised return:
The case involved the question of whether the Assessing Officer is obliged to adjust the demand made under section 143(1)(a) based on earlier returns when a second revised return is filed within the specified period. The Tribunal had decided the case without considering this legal position. The High Court examined the timeline of return filings and intimation under section 143(1)(a). It was noted that the second revised return was filed within the relevant assessment year, making it a valid return. The Court held that the assessment should be made under section 143(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under section 143(3) due to the absence of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143.

2. Validity of second revised return and carry forward of losses:
The Court addressed the issue of whether the second revised return, filed after the intimation under section 143(1)(a), was valid. It was established that the return was filed within the assessment year and before the completion of assessment, meeting the requirements of section 139(5). The Court emphasized that the unabsorbed depreciation could be carried forward to the succeeding previous year as per section 32(2). The Tribunal's decision to remand the case based on the enhanced figure in the revised return was deemed incorrect. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to assess the case afresh based on the second revised return, within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for fresh assessment in accordance with the law. The judgment clarified the legal obligations regarding revised returns, adjustment of demands, and carry forward of losses, providing a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.