AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, made a reference to this court of the following question of law for its opinion which pertains to the assessment for the year 1977-78 :
" Whether in view of the fact that the assessment in this case was initially completed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on September 22, 1977, and in view of the provision of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act restricting the fine for the filing of a revised return before the completion of assessment, the Tribunal was justified in holding, that the return filed by the assessee on January 5, 1980, was a revised return declaring a correct income and on that basis cancelling the penalty of Rs. 11,944 imposed by the Income Tax Officer u/s 271(1)(c) ?"
The facts, in brief, show that the return of income by the assessee was filed on September 15, 1977. The assessment was completed on this return on September 22, 1977, u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Some time in June, 1979, the Income Tax Officer issued notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act for correction of the assessment. After such notice was issued to the assessee, he filed a revised return on January 5, 1980. Subsequently, the assessment was completed and penalty was imposed. We feel somewhat handicapped as the proper relevant dates relating to issuance of notice, the subsequent assessment, etc., have not been mentioned in the paper book.
Mr. Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the return filed on January 5, 1980, could not be a revised one u/s 139(5) of the Act and it was, therefore, wrong to proceed on that premise.
It is admitted that once a notice u/s 143(2)(b) of the Act was issued, it is, in effect, setting aside the assessment made earlier u/s 143(1) of the Act. We do not, therefore, find that the Revenue is correct in its submission that the return filed on January 5, 1980, could not be treated as revised return when there was no assessment u/s 143(1) existing as per the return filed on September 15, 1977. Further from the nature of the question whether the penalty could have been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it would appear to be a question of fact.
In this view, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.