SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
M/s. Ganesh Dass Sreeram etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Shillong and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1032-1036 of 1973 (with 1927-1933 of 1978 and 1288-1289 of 1980), D/- 30-10-1987.
Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 2(39), 139 – Assessment – Appeal -Appellants, who are all registered firms within the meaning of S. 2(39), Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, have preferred these appeals against the judgments of the Gauhati High Court overruling the challenge of the appellants as to the legality of the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer for the delayed filing of returns and also as to the constitutional validity, as it stood before – Relevant provisions, as it stood prior – Every person, if his total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income in the case of every person before the expiry of six months from the end of the previous year or before the assessment year, whichever is later – in the case of every other person – Provided that, on an application made in the prescribed manner, the Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend the date for furnishing the return –Held, Before court part with these appeals, we think we should clarify one situation, namely, where the advance tax duly paid covers the entire amount of tax assessed, there is no question of charging the registered firm with interest even though the return is filed by it beyond the time allowed, regard being had to the fact that payment of interest is only compensatory in nature – As the entire amount of tax is paid by way of advance tax, the question of payment of any compensation does not arise it appears that total tax for the assessee paid advance tax amounting to in three instalments – It is apparent that the amount of advance tax paid by the assessee fully covered the amount of tax payable by it – In spite of that, the Income-tax Officer charged the assessee for the said assessment year a sum as interest of the Act for the delayed filing of the return – As has been observed earlier, when the amount of tax had already been paid in the shape of advance tax, the question of payment of compensation by way of interest does not arise and the Income-tax Officer was not, therefore, justified in charging interest – Assessee is, therefore, entitled to get refund of the amount paid by way of interest for the said assessment year – Income-tax Officer is directed to refund to the assessee the amount paid on account of interest – Order accordingly.
Judgment
DUTT, J. :- The appellants, who are all registered firms within the meaning of S. 2(39), Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, have preferred these appeals against the judgments of the Gauhati High Court overruling the challenge of the appellants as to the legality of the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer for the delayed filing of returns and also as to the constitutional validity of sub-s. (4) of S. 139 of the Act, as it stood before April 1, 1971.
2. The relevant provisions of S. 139, as it stood prior to April 1, 1971, are as follows : -
"S. 139(1). Every person, if his total income ......... during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income ...................
(a) in the case of every person .............. before the expiry of six months from the end of the previous year................, or before the 30th day of June of the assessment year, whichever is later;
(b) in the case of every other person, before the 30th day of June of the assessment year :
Provided that, on an application made in the prescribed manner, the Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend the date for furnishing the return-
(i) in the case of any person whose total income includes any income from business or profession the previous year in respect of which expired on or before the 31st day of December of the year immediately preceding the assessment year, and in the case of any person referred to in cl. (b), up to a period not extending beyond the 30th day of September of the assessment year without charging any interest;
(ii) in the case of any person whose total income includes any income from business or profession the previous year in respect of which expired after the 31st day of December of the year immediately preceding the assessment year, up to the 31st day of December of the assessment year without charging any interest; and
(iii) up to any period falling beyond the dates mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii), in which case, interest at nine per cent per annum shall be payable from the 1st day of October or the 1st day of January, as the case may be, of the assessment year to the date of the furnishing of the return -
(a) in the case of a registered firm or an unregistered firm which has been assessed under cl. (b) of S. 183, on the amount of tax which would have been payable if the firm had been assessed as an unregistered firm, and
(b) in any other case, on the amount of tax payable on the total income,
reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid or by any tax deducted at source, as the case may be.
(2). In the case of any person, who in the Income-tax Officers opinion, is assessable under this Act, whether on his own total income or on the total income of any other person during the previous year, the Income-tax Officer may, before the end of the relevant assessment year, serve a notice upon him requiring him to furnish, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth with such other particulars as may be prescribed :
Provided that on an application in the prescribed 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-cl. (iii) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) shall apply.
(4). Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) may before the assessment is made furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the end of four assessment years from the end of the assessment year to which the return relates, and the provisions of sub-cl. (iii) of
relied on : Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.Chandra Sekhar
Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
distinguished : Jain Brothers v. Union of India
Addl. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. Mahadeshwara Lorry Service
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.