TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw in deciding the case without considering the legal position? (ii) Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on January 7, 1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557, the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on January 7, 1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 6,26,26,557?" Facts: In order to answer these two questions, it would be relevant to narrate the facts in brief. A return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, covering a period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong claim by deprecating the process of finding out depreciation for 21 months on pro rata basis or not. On the other hand, it had held that the issue of loss after adjustment stands covered against the assessee by reason of the discussion made in the order pointing out to the retrospective amendment of section 143(3). The preliminary objection by the respondent/Department: The order of the learned Tribunal was sought to be supported by Mr. Moitra on twofold grounds-first, according to him, the return comprising 21 months cannot be treated to be a valid return and as such there was no return in the eye of law. In order to substantiate this question, he referred to the definition of "previous year" defined in section 2(34) to mean the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment effective from April 1, 1988, the period following is to be dealt with as the transitional period as contemplated under section 3, sub-section (2), read with the Tenth Schedule. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. Moitra cannot be sustained. That apart it is also to be noted that this return was never treated to be a void return by either the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Neither this point was ever raised. In any event, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that this preliminary objection can be sustained and is accordingly overruled. So far as the second question that has been raised by Mr. Moitra is concerned, the decision in Kumar Jagdish Chand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether second revised return is valid: Section 139(5) permits furnishing of revised return within the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier provided he has furnished a return either under section 139(1) or in pursuance of the notice issued under section 142(1). In the present case, the assessee had filed the return under section 139(1). Therefore, he is eligible to file a revised return under sub-section (5) within or before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. In this case the intimation under section 143(1)(a) was issued on September 19, 1990, namely, long before the end of the assessment year supposed to expire on Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised return was filed on January 7, 1991. Therefore, notice could have been issued till July 6, 1991. Admittedly, no such notice has been issued. Therefore, it is no more open to the Department to assess the return under sub-section (3) of section 143 in the absence of any notice under sub-section (2) thereof. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the issue stands covered against the assessee by reason of the discussion made in the order on account of amendment of section 143(3) with effect from April 1, 1989 or that the only question to be decided was with regard to the enhancement of the figure by reason of the first revised return with regard to the loss claimed. In fact, having regard to the facts and c....