9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the date for furnishing the return of income, no interest could be charged under, clause (iii) of the proviso to section 139(1) of the said Act for the delayed submission of the return of income ? " The assessment year involved is 1970-71, for which the relevant accounting period is 1969 calendar year. Section 139(1) as it stood during the relevant period required every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which was not chargeable to income-tax to furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or before the 30th day of June, of the assessment year, whichever was later. There was a provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on the amount of tax payable on the total income, reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid or by any tax deducted at source, as the case may be." Section 139(4) provided : " 139(4)(a). Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, be ore the assessment is made, furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of the period specified in clause (b), and the provisions of clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply in every such case; (b) the period referred to in clause (a) shall be (i) where the return relates to a previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 1967, four years from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time under the proviso to s. 139(1). Sub-s. (4) of s. 139 gave the assessee a right to file a return of income within a period of two years from the end of the assessment year 1970-71, if no assessment had taken place in the meantime. The assessee availed of that right given by s. 139(4) and filed his return of income. The right that was conferred under s. 139(4) was, however, saddled with the liability that " the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply in every such case". It is significant to note that the entire proviso to s. 139(1) was not made applicable. Sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to s. 139(1) provided that if a return of income was filed beyond the dates mentioned in sub-cls. (i) and (ii), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a manner that will make s. 139(4) workable. It should not be construed in such a way that a portion of that section becomes otiose or redundant. We are of the opinion that sub-cl. (iii) of the proviso was clearly attracted in this case and the assessee was liable to pay interest even though he had filed his return under s. 139(4) of the Act. The views that we have taken in this case are in consonance with the views of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Tikam Chand Agarwal [1979] 119 ITR 248, a Full Bench of the, Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of ITO v. Secunderabad Tin Industries [1978] 113 ITR 1, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chhotalal and Co. v. ITO [1976] 105 ITR 230, a Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
