1978 (8) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut any order by the ITO extending the time for filing the return. For the assessment year 1964-65, the return was to be filed till September 30, 1964. A notice under s. 139(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on June 1, 1964, calling for a return on or before July 1, 1964. The assessee, however, filed the return on May 21, 1965. For the assessment year 1967-68, a notice under s. 139(2) calling for a return to be filed on or before October 3, 1967, was issued on September 4, 1967. The assessee, however, filed the return on February 15, 1969. In both these years, the assessee did not apply to the ITO for extension of time either under s. 139(1) or (2) of the Act. The ITO charged interest for late filing of the return. This view was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the High Court of Patna in CIT v. Bahri Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 443 and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Mulakh Raj Bimal Kumar v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 382. The Gauhati High Court has in Shankarlall Goenka v. ITO (since reported in [1979] 119 ITR 229) also taken the same view, though by majority. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find ourselves in agreement with the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the majority opinion of the Gauhati High Court. Learned counsel for the assessee stressed the various aspects mentioned in the decisions, taking the other view but for the reasons given in these decisions, we are not prepared to accept them. In our opinion, interest is payable under the provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....escribed manner, the Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend the date for the furnishing of the return, and when the date for furnishing the return, whether fixed originally or on extension, falls beyond the 30th day of September or, as the case may be, the 31st day of December of the assessment year, the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply." In this case also the provisions of cl. (iii) were made applicable. If we were to read cl. (iii) read with the opening part of the proviso, it will be duplication and will add confusion because this proviso itself speaks of extension of the date contemplated by sub-s. (2). The proviso to sub-s. (2) clearly indicates that the provision in cl. (iii) r....