9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was under the mistaken belief that notices were issued under s. 17(1)(b) whereas they were intended to be under s. 17(1)(a) as the assessee had not filed returns under s. 14 for the assessment years under appeal i.e. 1976-77 to 1979-80. The CIT (A) referred to the insertion of s. 17A prescribing the time limit in cases governed under s. 17(1)(a) as well as under s. 17(1)(b) and held that as the assessee had not filed any return under s. 14, the returns submitted by her on 30th Nov., 1984 were invalid in the eye of law and the notices under s. 17 for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1979-80 are referable only to s. 17(1)(a). In response to such notices, the assessee also had suggested that the returns already filed on 30 the Nov., 1984 may be deemed to be returns in compliance with notices under s. 17. In this view of the matter, he held that there was no question of the assessments being barred by limitation. 4. Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed her returns of wealth for all the year on 30th Nov., 1984 prior to the issue of notices under s. 17. The returns so sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment within period of one year from the date of filing of such return or within a period of 4 years from the end of the assessments year in which the wealth was first assessable, whichever period expires later. Thus, the period of one year for the completion of the assessment from the date of filing the return is always linked up with the period of 4 year which is the normal time limit for the completion of the assessment. In this connection, he referred to the observation of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569 at 576 (SC), and argued that the extension of one year was introduced in the Act, only to obviate the difficulties mentioned by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. In the case of the assessee, all the returns were filed beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year in which the wealth became first assessable and, therefore there was no question of treating the returns which were filed belatedly as valid returns and acting on the same. The only option left with the WTO was to assess the wealth under the provision of s. 17. Inasmuch as the assessee has not filed that the wealth return under the provisions of s. 14 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the analogy is not complete. Under s. 139(4) as it stood before 1st April, 1968 or after its amendment w.e.f. 1st April, 1968, the time limit for the submission of the return of income under that sub-section has been prescribed but such time limit for the submission of the return of wealth under s.15 is nowhere found in the W.T. Act. Therefore, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Parbati Devi vs. CIT,U.P and Ors. (1970) 75 ITR 625 (All) cited before us, will not be of any assistance to the contention of the Revenue. 8. Thus, s. 15 enables the assessee to file a return or a revised return at any time before the assessment is made and s. 14(2) enables the WTO to call upon a person to furnish return at any time before the assessment is made. From a reading of these two sections, it could be inferred that notwithstanding the time prescribed for the submission of return under s. 14(1) of the WT Act, the return could be furnished at any time before the assessment is made either upon the issuance of a notice under s. 14(2) or voluntarily under s. 15 Sec. 14 and s. 15 are found in the WT Act from the inception. Till 31st Dec., 1975 no time limit was prescribed for the compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the assessment year in which the wealth was first assessable and if, however, a person had furnished the return on the last day of the fourth year, the time limit for competing the assessment is extended by one more year from the date or filing of such return. If no such construction is made, a piquant situation will arise whereby the WTO would be constrained to call upon the assessee under s. 14(2) of the Act to furnish within a period of four years from the end of the assessment year in which the wealth was first assessable, whereas there are no such fetters on the assesses to furnish his return within those four years. Therefore, in the interest of harmony, the date of furnishing a return under s. 15 or under s. 14(2) should be limited to the period of four years from the end of the assessment year in which the wealth was first assessable so that the one year extension envisaged in the second limb of the section could be given effect to. 10. Prima facie, there is force in the argument of the learned departmental representative, but upon an analysis, we do not find any inconsistency in holding that a person can furnish return of wealth at any time even beyond the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of such time limit for the submission of return under s. 15 of the WT Act, we hold that there is no time limit for submitting return under s. 15, provided no assessment had been made in the mean time. That is why the second limb of s. 17A(1)(b) of the W.T. Act, giving an extension of one year, is preceded by the disjunctive "or". As a matter of fact, it is only w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, time limit has been prescribed for the first time for submitting return under s. 15 of the WT Act. Therefore, we hold that the legislature, in its superior wisdom, has given two sets of time limits for the completion of the assessment prior to amendment of s. 15 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The first limb of s. 17A(1)(b) deals with cases in which the returns were furnished under s. 14(1) of the WT Act. Sec. 14(2) of the WT Act, whereby the WTO has got a right to call upon the assessee to furnish the return of wealth, is operative only for a period of four years from the end of the assessment year in which the wealth was first assessable, because, after the end of that period, the WTO is precluded from issuing any notice under s. 14(2). However under s. 15, there are no such f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
