TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (5) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y charged on the assessee as provided in proviso (iii) of section 139(1) of the Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not require an assessee to apply for extension of time for filing its return of income as a condition precedent for charging of interest as provided in proviso (iii) of section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? " The assessment year in question is 1962-63 corresponding to the previous year ending on March 31, 1962. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of building contractor. The due date for filing the return of income was November 30, 1962, but it was filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vail of the benefit of filing the return beyond the period provided for in clause (a) or (b) of section 139(1), the provisions regarding payment of interest had to be applied. The revenue was, therefore, held justified in charging interest for late filing of the return. The relevant portions of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read as follows : " 139. Return of income -(1) Every person, if his total income... in respect of which he is assessable exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income ... during the previous year, in the prescribed form ...... (a) in the case of every person whose total income,...includes any income from business or profession, before the expiry o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of four assessment years from the end of the assessment year to which the return relates and the provision of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply in every such case ". [Sub-section (4) as reproduced above is applicable in the present case It was amended with effect from April 1, 1968]. Mr. B. N. Kirpal, the learned counsel for the revenue, contended that any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) or (2), but who furnishes the return in pursuance of subsection (4) before the assessment is made, subjects himself to the provisions of clause (iii) of the proviso to the sub-section. According to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or an oral order extending the date for furnishing the return. Mr. Kirpal then contended that sub-section (4) does not apply the whole of the proviso to subsection (1) to the case. It is the interest part of the proviso, which alone is relevant in the context of the language of subsection (4), which according to him, would apply. This contention again is without merit. Sub-clause (iii) torn from its context, in itself, would hardly make much sense. It would remain an incomplete sentence. Sub-clause (iii) has to be read along with the opening part of the proviso, which says that the Income-tax Officer may in his discretion extend the date for furnishing the return " up to any period falling beyond the date mentioned in clauses (i) and (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be construed in its strict sense. The assessee is always entitled to the benefit of doubt, if any left in the language of the statute. Sub-section (4) applies the provisions of clause (iii) of the proviso to the cases falling under it. The phrase " in which case ", occurring in clause (iii) makes the subsequent portion of the clause dealing with interest dependent on the earlier portion of the clause, which read with the opening part of the proviso makes the making of an application in the prescribed manner and the actual grant of extension by the Income-tax Officer, conditions precedent for the payment of interest. There may be a lacuna in the language, which we are afraid, we cannot fill up. We are fortified in this view by the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less he had applied for extension of time and the extension sought for had been granted. Mr . S. B. Gupta, the learned counsel for the assessee, relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kishanlal Harichandran v. Income-tax Officer, Nizamabad , where it was held that the assessee was liable to pay penal interest under clause (iii) only if he had asked for extension of time for submission of the return. In the absence of such a request, clause (iii) did not apply, although other consequences like the assessee subjecting himself to the penalty provided in section 271 of the Act may follow. We are in respectful agreement with this view. This judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was noticed by the Ga....