IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In case of a return filed under sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a revised return contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 139 cannot be filed.
2. Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, not initiated within a period of four years prescribed by Section 153 (1)(a)(i) are barred by time.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the three questions referred to it under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The three questions are :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the return of income furnished by the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beyond the time allowed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the said Section, could not be construed as a return furnished under either of the latter sub-section and in that view holding that the assessee was not entitled to file a revised return under sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were within the time limit prescribed in Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cases for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were such as failing within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271?"

2. While Question No.1 was referred at the instance of the Revenue, Questions 2 and 3 were referred at the instance of the assessee. The two assessment years concerned herein are 1964-65 and 1965-66.

3. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee did not furnish a return within the period prescribed by sub-section (1) of Section 139. No notice under sub-section (2) of Section 139 was served upon him. The assesssee submitted a return on August 13, 1964 disclosing a total income of Rs.42,131. This return, it is not in dispute, was filed under, and taking advantage of the provision contained in, sub-section (4) of Section 139. On January 18, 1969 he filed a revised return disclosing a total income of Rs.40,388. The assessee also disclosed in this revised return a capital loss of Rs.1,60,672/- on the sale of a plot of land. The Income Tax Officer did not complete the assessment within four years of the expiry of the assessment year 1964-65 i.e., on or before 31.3.1969. He made the assessment order on January 15, 1970. He also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) and referred the same to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required by law in force at that time.

4. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66 also, the assessee did not file a return within the period prescribed by Section 139(1). No notice under Section 139(2) was served upon him. He filed a return under Section 139(4) on December 17, 1965 disclosing an income of Rs.3,76,628/- which included a capital gain of Rs.3,52,420/-. On July 17, 1969 the assessee filed a revised return showing the total income at Rs. 2,50,719/-. This figure was arrived at after reducing the capital gains from Rs.3,52,420 (as disclosed in original return) to Rs.2,52,119. The Income Tax Officer did not complete the assessment before the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year 1965-66 i.e., on or before 31st March, 1970. He made the assessment order only on July 6, 1970. In this year too, the Income Tax Officer initiated penatly proceedings and referred the same to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

5. Against the orders of assessment in respect of both the assessment years, the assessee went up in appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In these appeals he disputed the very validity of the assessment orders on the ground that they have been made beyond the prescribed period of four years. He submitted that the revised returns filed by him were inadmissible in law and therefore could not serve to extend the period for making the assessment as provided by Section 153(1)(c). He also disputed the correct