Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a return filed voluntarily under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be revised under section 139(5), and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment could not be cancelled on the basis of the later return.
Analysis: The assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 had to be completed under the procedure of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 297(2)(b). The return filed on 30 March 1965 was therefore a valid voluntary return under section 139(4). The later return filed on 28 March 1966 could not be treated as a revised return under section 139(5), because that provision applies only where the earlier return was furnished under section 139(1) or section 139(2). The language of section 139(5) deliberately omits returns under section 139(4), and the earlier Supreme Court ruling on the predecessor provision did not equate a voluntary belated return with a return filed under the normal filing provisions for all purposes.
Conclusion: The later return was not a valid revised return under section 139(5), and the Tribunal was justified in not cancelling the assessment. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A return voluntarily filed under section 139(4) is not, for the purpose of section 139(5), equivalent to a return furnished under section 139(1) or section 139(2); therefore, such a return cannot be revised under section 139(5).