TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (6) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the firm of Messrs. M. Nagappa, Contractors, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1967-68, the firm of which the petitioner is a partner, filed its return on August 1, 1967. The firm thereafter filed a revised return on October 18, 1969, admitting a larger income. The petitioner filed his return on October 28, 1969. The petitioner's return was due on June 30, 1967, under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The revised return filed by the firm was accepted and an order of assessment was made. Based on the said assessment order, the petitioner's share income was also assessed. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had no income apart from the share income from the firm. The Income-tax Officer in his assessment order dated Oc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the petitioners of their share income were under sub-section (4) of section 139. In support of his contention, the learned counsel sought reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. That was a case under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Grover J., who delivered the majority judgment, stated thus: "It can well be said that section 22(3) is merely a proviso to section 22(1). Thus, a return submitted at any time before the assessment is made is a valid return. In considering whether a return made is within time sub-section (1) of section 22 must be read along with sub-section (3) of that section. A return whether it is a return of income, profits or gains or of lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduce or waive the interest payable by any person under any provision of section 139 in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed and that, in the instant case, neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Commissioner has considered the case for waiver in the light of the decision of this court in Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I.T.R.C. No. 24 of 1970, decided on 14-12-1971). In the said case, it has been held by this court that if a partner who has no income apart from the share income does not file his return within the due date, the delay in filing the return till the firm files its return should be considered as sufficient cause for not filing the return within the due date. In the instan....