1979 (11) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, has referred the following two questions for our opinion : " 1. Whether the second revised return filed on February 8, 1972, was a valid return under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the time for the completion of assessment was extended up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn was filed in view of s. 153(1)(c), and should have been completed by the 2nd of March, 1972, and the ITO erred in calculating the limitation from the 8th of February, 1972, which was the date on which the second revised return was filed. In substance, it was urged that second revised return could not be filed under s. 139(5), and, as such, the extended period of limitation provided by s. 153(1)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made ". It is the word " therein " which occurs in s. 139(5), which have given the impetus to this argument. It is undoubtedly true that a revised return may be furnished at any time before the assessment is made by person who has furnished a return under s. 139(1) or s. 139(2), and once revised return has been filed under s. 139(5), the original return is supplanted by the revised return, as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....return under s. 139(1), or at best a return under both these provisions. The same consequence results from the view taken by Hari Swarup J. in Dhampur Sugar Mills' case [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All). For, if the original return filed under s. 139(1) is taken to be withdrawn, and the revised return substitutes itself in its place, it becomes return under s. 139(1) This being the position of a return file....