Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naginimara Veneer and Saw Mills (P.) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Direct Taxation
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 1 of 1990
Judge
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 72, 139, 139(1), 139(2), 139(4) and 139(8)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentNaginimara Veneer and Saw Mills (P.) Ltd.
Appellant AdvocateD.K. Talukdar and B.J. Talukdar, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Jain, Adv.
Prior history
D.N. Baruah, J.
1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Department ;
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of loss to the assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 19
Excerpt:
.....assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under section 139(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. to answer the reference, it is necessary to narrate the short facts of the case. cit [1979]120itr1(sc) ,where it was held that a return filed within the extended period was a good return in the sense that the income-tax officer was bound to take it into consideration, affirmed the order passed by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). hence, the present reference......the supreme court in the case of brij mohan v. cit : [1979]120itr1(sc) , where it was held that a return filed within the extended period was a good return in the sense that the income-tax officer was bound to take it into consideration, affirmed the order passed by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). hence, the present reference.4. we have heard mr. d.k. talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, and mr. r.k. jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee.5. the question that falls for consideration is, whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that the return was filed within time.6. under section 139(1) of the income-tax act, every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is.....
Judgment:

D.N. Baruah, J.

1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Department ;

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of loss to the assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'

2. To answer the reference, it is necessary to narrate the short facts of the case.

3. The Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that the total loss was computed at Rs. 2,23,087. He mentioned that the loss computed was not allowed to be carried forward as the assessee did not file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(3). The assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1977]108ITR838(Cal) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Revenue took up the matter before the Tribunal which after considering all the aspects and considering various decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT : [1979]120ITR1(SC) , where it was held that a return filed within the extended period was a good return in the sense that the Income-tax Officer was bound to take it into consideration, affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the present reference.

4. We have heard Mr. D.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and Mr. R.K. Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee.

5. The question that falls for consideration is, whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that the return was filed within time.

6. Under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under the Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form. Under Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 139, any person who fails to furnish a return within the time allowed to him under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) may, before the assessment is made, furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of the period specified in Clause (b), and the provisions of Sub-section (8) shall apply in every such case. The period referred to in Clause (b)(iii) shall be, where the return relates to a previous year relevant to any other assessment year, two years from the end of such assessment year.

7. Admittedly, the assessment year was 1982-83. The return was filed on July 6, 1983, i.e., within two years from the end of the assessment year. In view of the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) , the return filed by the assessee must be. deemed to be filed within the time prescribed so as to attract the provisions of Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, the reference is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no direction as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //