1993 (11) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of Instruction No. 888 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the filing of revised returns under section 139(5) of the Act.
3. Applicability of the decision in the case of CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556 on the permissibility of filing successive returns under section 139(4) within the period of limitation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The assessee, earning income from truck plying, filed a return under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1971-72, disclosing additional income from selling his truck. The Income-tax Officer passed an order challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and further to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue was whether the revised return filed by the assessee on March 5, 1974, was valid, extending the period of limitation for passing an order under section 153(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The assessee contended that the revised return was not valid as the original return was filed under section 139(4), and he was not entitled to file a revised return under section 139(5) based on Instruction No. 888 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The instruction stated that a person filing a return under section 139(4) cannot file a revised return under section 139(5) and the extended time-limit under section 153(1)(c) would not apply in such cases.

3. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that there was no prohibition on filing successive returns under section 139(4) and relied on the decision in CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court in that case held that successive returns under section 139(4) were permissible within the period of limitation, and subsequent returns would replace earlier ones for assessment purposes. However, the High Court in the present case refrained from giving a final opinion due to the non-consideration of the Central Board of Direct Taxes' instruction by the Tribunal, leaving the matter to be decided afresh by the Tribunal in light of the instruction and the law.

In conclusion, the High Court left the question unanswered and disposed of the reference without costs, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the matter considering the Central Board of Direct Taxes' instruction and in accordance with the law.