Court rules interest under Section 139(4) requires extension application; partners liable for share interest.

The court held that interest cannot be charged under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act without an application for extension of time to file the return. The court favored the view that interest is chargeable only if an application for extension has been filed and granted by the Income Tax Officer. However, the court ruled that a partner remains liable for interest on his share of income even if the registered firm is treated as an unregistered firm for interest purposes. The petitions were allowed, quashing the demand for interest without an extension application and affirming the partner's liability for interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) can charge interest under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any application by the assessee for an extension of time to file his return.
2. Whether a partner of a registered firm is liable to be charged with interest on his share of income if the firm was treated as an unregistered firm for interest purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Charging Interest under Section 139(4) Without Application for Extension:

The petitioner contended that since no application for an extension of time to file the return was made, interest cannot be charged under Section 139(4). The relevant part of Section 139(1) and its proviso, along with Section 139(4), was examined. The proviso to Section 139(1) allows the ITO to extend the date for furnishing the return on an application made in the prescribed manner, and interest is chargeable if the return is filed beyond the extended dates.

The court noted conflicting judicial opinions on this matter. The first view, supported by decisions in cases like *Ganesh Das Sreeram v. ITO* and *Chhotalal & Co. v. ITO*, held that interest is chargeable even if no application for extension is filed. This view assumes that the Legislature intended to charge interest in all cases of delayed returns under Section 139(4).

The second view, supported by decisions like *Kishanlal Haricharan v. ITO* and *Garg & Co. v. CIT*, held that an application for extension is a condition precedent for charging interest. This view maintains that the entire proviso to Section 139(1), including the requirement for an application, must be read into Section 139(4).

The court favored the second view, emphasizing that a plain reading of Section 139(4) incorporates the entire provisions of clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1). Therefore, interest is chargeable only if an application for extension has been filed and granted by the ITO. This interpretation aligns with the rule that a taxing statute should be construed in favor of the assessee if ambiguity exists.

2. Liability of Partner for Interest When Firm Treated as Unregistered:

The petitioner argued that since the registered firm was treated as an unregistered firm for interest purposes, the partner should not be liable for interest on his share of income. The court clarified that for tax assessment purposes, a registered firm and its partners are separate entities. Both can be assessed independently under the Income Tax Act.

Under clause (a) of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1), a registered firm is liable to be charged with interest as if it were an unregistered firm. However, this treatment does not exempt the partner from being charged with interest on his share of income under clause (b) of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1). The partner's liability for interest remains intact despite the firm's treatment for interest purposes.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the petitions succeed on the first issue, quashing the impugned notices demanding interest without an application for extension. However, the second issue was decided against the petitioner, affirming the partner's liability for interest on his share of income. The petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were entitled to costs.

Separate Judgments:

- B. N. Sarma J.: Dissented on the first issue, supporting the first view that interest is chargeable under Section 139(4) without an application for extension. Agreed with the majority on the second issue.
- N. Ibotombi Singh J.: Agreed with B. N. Sarma J. on the first issue, supporting the first view, and concurred with the majority on the second issue.

---