9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Bishnoi (12) Partners Rs. Nil The ITO completed the assessments which were appealed against and the matter rested there. Latter the assessee made applications to the ITO that the original returns were filed in pursuance of section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act and the time limit for completion of the assessment had expired on 2nd September, 1976. The ITO had actually completed the assessments on 23rd February, 1977, 24th February, 1977 and 28th March, 1977. The extended time limit for revised return was not available in a case where the return had been filed under section 139(4). Reference was made to Circular No. 888 dated 1st Oct., 1975 which had clarified the position. The Board's instructions were binding on the ITO and the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t inclined to interfere with the conclusion of the authorities below. The issue in dispute is certainly contentious. Though this bench had taken a view in favour of the assessee it was not without a great deal of hesitation and reluctance that the dictating member had accepted that conclusion. The reason for that is the plain and simple language of section 153. According to sub-s. (1), no order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or 144 at any time after- (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) the expiry of one year from the date of the filing of a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139 whichever is latest. The Bench's decision was following the decision of the Special Bench in ITO v. Bohra Films ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. This view is fully supported by the observations of the Delhi High Court in Malhotra's case. Now take for instance this very case. The assessee could file another return under section 139(4) as long as the period for completing the assessment under section 153 is not completed. The other view may be that so far as the return under section 139(4) is concerned, there can be no subsequent return under section 139(4). To hold that there should not be any subsequent return under section 139(4) even within the period of limitation is not warranted by the scheme of the Act. If such a view is taken it will lead to practical difficulties. If an assessee, who has filed a return under section 139 (4) finds an obvious mistake or omission which is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly that the last revised return was invalid, since on that day no return under section 139(4) could at all be filed. The assessment in this case was made more than one year after the last valid return dated 7th December, 1972 was filed. Thus the Rajasthan High Court decision would not straight way made the present assessments to be time-barred. In any case the matter in dispute cannot be said to be free from difficulty. Since the assessee did not agitate the issue in appeal before the AAC, the assessment should be deemed to have become final except only in relation to mistakes apparent from the records. It has been held in the case of Volkart Bros. v. T.S. Balaram, ITO (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) that "a mistake apparent on the record must be an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
