1984 (9) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer were barred by limitation.
2. Validity of returns filed without accompanying profit and loss account and balance-sheet.
3. Applicability of Section 139(4) and Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Limitation of Assessments
The Tribunal referred the question of whether the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer on February 26, 1970, and February 15, 1974, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1970-71 respectively, were barred by limitation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially held that the assessments were time-barred because the first set of returns filed by the assessee should not have been ignored. However, the Tribunal concluded that the valid returns were those filed on March 30, 1969, and February 22, 1973, as they were accompanied by the required profit and loss account and balance-sheet. Therefore, the assessments made on February 26, 1970, and February 15, 1974, were within the limitation period.

Issue 2: Validity of Incomplete Returns
The assessee argued that the first set of returns, although not accompanied by the profit and loss account and balance-sheet, should be considered valid. The Tribunal and the High Court held that returns must be complete, including the profit and loss account and balance-sheet, as required by the prescribed form. The first set of returns was deemed incomplete and thus invalid. The second set of returns, which included the necessary documents, was considered the valid returns.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 139(4) and Section 139(5)
The assessee contended that the second set of returns should be regarded as non est in law and that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the first set of returns. The High Court disagreed, stating that Section 139(4) allows for the filing of belated returns before the assessment is made, and Section 139(5) permits the filing of revised returns if any omission or wrong statement is discovered. The second set of returns filed by the assessee was considered valid under these provisions. The court referenced previous judgments, including Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) v. CIT and Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha v. CIT, to support the view that the effective return for assessment purposes is the one ultimately filed by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessments were not barred by limitation and that the second set of returns filed by the assessee was valid. The question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.