9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of salary received by him from Nigeria amounted to Rs. 74,662 which was initially included in the assessee's return. He did not file any salary certificate and sought exemption of 50% thereof at Rs. 37,331. Later on the assessee declared the income from Indian employer only and contended that he maintained the accounts of his new source of income at Nigeria as on Diwali year basis. The first such year had ended on Diwali 1980 and as such he had wrongly included the salary earned at Nigeria from 22-10-1979 to 31-3-1980. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A.R.C. v. 13th ITO [IT Appeal No. 1959 (Bom.) of 1979. The Income-tax Officer, however, was of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts in respect of salaries derived from Nigerian employer up to a certain specific date falling within the relevant financial year, he could not exercise the option under section 3(1)(b) and, therefore, financial year would be his accounting year. Once the assessee had made up his accounts up to 31-3-1980, there was no question of exercising an option under section 3(1)(b) for adopting the Samvat year as previous year as the assessee intended to change the previous year either in respect of salaries from the Indian employer or from the Nigerian employer. Sub-section (4) of section 3 would come into play and the assessee was not entitled to vary the meaning of the expression " previous year " except with the consent of the ITO. The ITO, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ength in this appeal. Apparently the assessee's case is supported by the decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench " A ", Bombay, in the case of Shri A.P.C.'s case but on a closer scrutiny, we find that the assessee cannot derive any help therefrom. In that case it was expressly stated as a matter of fact that the assessee was maintaining accounts in regard to salary income from foreign firm and had adopted the previous year for it as the Samvat year. Therefore, it was on this footing that the Bench was of the opinion that his income from salary fell for consideration in the subsequent assessment year in which the assessee was neither resident nor had he offered it for taxation. Here the facts are totally different. The assessee was following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period prescribed under section 139(1) nor had any notice been issued to the assessee under section 139(2). Ordinarily a return filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised. It is correct that a revised return was accepted as the real return by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 560, but there serious doubts have been raised about the correctness of this decision. In fact the decision was based on the peculiar circumstances of the case, when the High Court felt that the assessee who filed revised return could be allowed to argue that it was an invalid return. In the present case the assessee chose the financial year as his accounting year and then sought to change the financial year whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
