TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the due date for filing the return was on 31st Aug., 1994. The return can be filed under s. 139(4) on 31st March, 1996. Notice under s. 142(1)(i) was issued on 9th March, 1995, and the return was filed on 17th Feb., 1997. The assessment was completed on 31st March, 1997. In this case no return of income by 31st Aug., 1994, was filed and thereafter by 31st March, 1996, the return was filed. 3. The ITO, Ward-I, Udaipur, issued notice under s. 142(1)(i) of the Act dt. 9th March, 1995, calling for return of income to be filed on or before 31st March, 1995, but the notice was served on 21st March, 1995. 4. Thereafter, another notice under s. 142(1)(ii) of the Act, dt. 31st Jan., 1997, fixing the date of hearing on 18th Feb., 1997, was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) of the Act for filing the return or except otherwise provided in other sections of the IT Act. The AO has also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) through his remand report that the appellant in his letter dt. 25th Feb., 1997, stated that the return had been filed in response to notice under s. 142(1). The said letter reads as under: "That for asst. yr. 1994-95, in compliance to notice under s. 142(1) of IT Act, return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 47,920 and tax and interest payable therein, i.e., Rs. 4,100 duly deposited on 17th Feb., 1997, i.e., on the same day." In view of the above facts, the CIT(A) held that the return filed on 17th Feb., 1997, was not non est but it was a return filed in compliance to notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and for agricultural income and, therefore, provisions of s. 144 were resorted to and since no books of account were maintained by the appellant provisions of s. 145 were considered applicable. The nomenclature used in the assessment order is not suggestive to the validity of the assessment order and even if a wrong section has been quoted it is a procedural omission but certainly not fatal to the very essence of the action to vitiate the assessment framed. No undue emphasise or importance can be given to the section mentioned in the assessment year. Rather, a complete and composite approach to the order of assessment vis-a-vis relevant sections do not violate the principle of natural justice. Therefore, these objections of the counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the AO is not valid in the eye of law. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is a case for asst. yr. 1994-95. The due date for filing the return under s. 139(1) was 31st Aug., 1994, whereas the return was filed on 17th Feb., 1997. No return of income was filed by the due date, i.e., 31st Aug., 1994. The AO issued notice under s. 142(1)(i) of the Act dt. 9th March, 1995, asking for return to be filed on or before 21st March, 1995. In response to the notice, no return was filed. We agree with the view of the learned CIT(A) that there is no time-limit for requiring the assessee to file return in compliance with the notice under s. 142(1)(i) of the Act except otherwise provided in s. 153(1)(a) of the Act. U....