9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. - - - - - Dated:- 27-6-2002 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., K. A. PUJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K.A. Puj J.-At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad "A" Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation?" The assessment year in question is the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee filed a return of income on August 14, 1973, declaring the total income of Rs. 10,904. The due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was June 30, 1973. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular on June 20, 1973, extending the time for filing the return for the assessment year 1973-74 up to August 15, 1973. The assessee thereafter filed the revised return on March 22, 1976, disclosing the total income of Rs. 11,304. The Income-tax Officer processed the said return and completed the assessment on March 15, 1977, treating the return filed on March 22, 1976, as a valid return and determined the total income of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct Taxes Circular No. 113, dated June 20, 1973, was to the effect that all returns filed up to August 14, 1973, would be returns filed under section 139(1). The Tribunal has, thus, come to the conclusion that the assessment as framed was well within the period of limitation. Being aggrieved by this judgment and the order of the Tribunal, the above reference was made before this court raising the question of law as referred to hereinabove for our opinion. Heard, Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned advocate for Mr. S.N. Soparkar, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, and Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Department. Mr. Hemani, the learned advocate, has challenged the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has no power or authority to issue Circular No. 113, having regard to the provisions contained in section 119 of the Act. He has invited our attention to the provisions contained in section 119(2)(a) which reads as under: "(a) the Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tending the period of limitation for completing the assessment. Since the assessment was based on that return, the said assessment was invalid and non est. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 67 wherein it has been held that no revised return can be filed under sub-section (5) of section 139 in a case where the return is filed under section 139(4). Once this is so the revised returns filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were invalid in law and could not have been treated and acted upon as revised returns contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 139 and, consequently section 153(1)(c) was not attracted. Mr. Hemani, therefore, submitted that the assessment framed by the Income-tax Officer was obviously barred by limitation. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel appearing for the Department, has supported the order passed by the authorities below and reiterated all the contentions raised by the Department before the Tribunal. As far as the first contention urged by Mr. Hemani with regard to the powers of the Central Board of Direct T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment was framed on the basis of that return, the said assessment cannot be held to be barred by limitation and it cannot be held as invalid or non est. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Hemani, the learned advocate, that Circular No. 113, dated June 20, 1973, was issued only with a view to enable the income-tax authorities to waive the interest in case the return for the assessment year 1973-74 was filed after the due date, i.e., June 30, 1973. It is nowhere suggested in the said circular that the same was issued only for that purpose. The opening paragraph of the said circular is very clear. It says that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has decided to extend the time for furnishing returns of income and net wealth for the assessment year 1973-74 till August 15, 1973, in cases where returns are due to be filed by June 30, 1973 or July 31, 1973. Thus, the said circular was issued practically for several purposes of the Act, which, inter alia, includes the purpose of treating the return filed on or before August 15, 1973, but after its due date as the return filed under section 139(1). The reference in the cir cular regarding rule 117A(v) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
