1995 (5) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

whether an application made under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961 for extension of time for filing of the return of income after the expiry of the stipulated period could be regarded as legal and valid.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of applications for extension of time under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made after the expiry of the stipulated period.
2. Interpretation of the proviso to section 139(2) and its procedural implications.
3. The discretion of the Income-tax Officer in extending the time for filing returns.
4. Relevance of procedural rules and prescribed forms in interpreting statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Applications for Extension of Time under Section 139(2):
The primary issue was whether an application made under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for an extension of time for filing the return of income, after the expiry of the stipulated period, could be regarded as legal and valid. The assessees argued that they had made applications for extension, which were not expressly rejected, leading them to reasonably presume that the extensions were granted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that applications for extension of time could be made even after the expiry of the initial period, as there were no words of limitation in section 139(2) to preclude such applications.

2. Interpretation of the Proviso to Section 139(2) and Its Procedural Implications:
The proviso to section 139(2) allowed the Income-tax Officer to extend the date for furnishing the return. The Supreme Court noted that the proviso did not explicitly limit the timing of the application for extension. The prescribed Form No. 6 indicated that an application for extension could be filed even after the due date. The Court emphasized that the procedural nature of section 139(2) and the absence of explicit limitations allowed for post-expiry applications.

3. Discretion of the Income-tax Officer in Extending the Time for Filing Returns:
The Court highlighted that the Income-tax Officer had discretion to extend the date for filing returns and that this discretion was not limited by the number of times or the period for which the date could be extended. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the word "extend" implied that the application must be made before the expiry of the original period. The Court drew an analogy with section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for the enlargement of time even after the original period has expired, to support the interpretation that the Income-tax Officer could consider belated applications.

4. Relevance of Procedural Rules and Prescribed Forms in Interpreting Statutory Provisions:
The Supreme Court referred to rule 13 and Form No. 6, which supported the view that applications for extension could be made after the due date. The Court noted that procedural rules and prescribed forms, while not overriding statutory provisions, provided context and clarity in interpreting the statute. The Court criticized the contrary views of the Andhra Pradesh, Patna, and Gauhati High Courts, which had held that belated applications were invalid. The Supreme Court found these interpretations too narrow and inconsistent with the procedural flexibility intended by section 139(2).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision, affirming that applications for extension of time under section 139(2) made after the expiry of the stipulated period were maintainable and valid. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the procedural nature of section 139(2) and the discretionary power of the Income-tax Officer to extend the filing period, even for belated applications. The judgment clarified the interpretation of procedural provisions and reinforced the importance of considering prescribed forms and rules in statutory interpretation.

← Previous Next →