9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of treating original return as invalid under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Consideration of revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act. 3. Compliance with Circular No. 1348 by the Assessing Officer. 4. Justification of upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A). Issue 1: Validity of treating original return as invalid under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act: The appellant, a co-operative society, failed to submit audit report and other documents with the return of income for the assessment year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer issued a defect notice and allowed 15 days to rectify the defects, mentioning that failure to do so would render the return invalid. The appellant requested a three-month extension due to the delay in statutory audit. Despite no formal rejection of the extension request, the Assessing Officer treated the original return as invalid. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's discretion under section 139(9) allows for time extension up to the date of assessment. As the extension request was not rejected, the Tribunal ruled that the return should not have been treated as invalid. Issue 2: Consideration of revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act: The appellant filed a revised return on 31-3-1995 after the original return was deemed invalid. The Assessing Officer, citing the invalidity of the original return, considered the revised return as infructuous. The Tribunal held that since the original return should have been accepted as valid, the revised return rectifying the defects should also be considered valid. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income in accordance with the law based on the revised return. Issue 3: Compliance with Circular No. 1348 by the Assessing Officer: The appellant relied on Circular No. 1348, which states that if the return indicates that the audit has not been completed, the return should not be treated as defective. The Tribunal emphasized that circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on departmental officers. In this case, the appellant had informed the Assessing Officer of the delay in statutory audit, justifying the absence of audited accounts. As the Assessing Officer did not reject the extension request and failed to consider the provision for time extension under section 139(9), the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer did not follow the provisions of the Act and Circular No. 1348. Issue 4: Justification of upholding the action of the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A): The CIT(A) rejected the appellant's claim, upholding the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the original return as invalid and the revised return as infructuous. The Tribunal disagreed with this decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's failure to consider the extension request and comply with Circular No. 1348 rendered the treatment of the returns as invalid and infructuous unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income based on the revised return filed by the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance by the Assessing Officer and the validity of the extension request made by the appellant. The judgment highlights the significance of following statutory provisions and circulars to ensure fair treatment of taxpayers in income tax assessments.
|
