High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Mehnga Singh
Section WT 15, WT 17A
Asst. Year 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74
Adarsh Kumar Goel & Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
WT Ref. Nos. 64 to 70 of 1992
7th December, 2006
Counsel Appeared :
Dr. N. L. Sharda, for the CIT
JUDGMENT
By the court :
The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, arising out of its order dt. 27th Aug., 1990, in WT Appeal Nos. 14 to 20/Asr/1987 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1973-74.
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that a return filed under s. 15 of the WT Act, 1957, could not be subsequently revised in terms of s. 15 itself and consequently holding that the assessment order passed on 20th March, 1980, as well as 30th June, 1983, by the WTO as barred by limitation under s. 17A of the Act in respect of the assessment year in dispute ?”
The facts as noticed by the Tribunal are that the assessee Shri Mehnga Singh, son of Sh. Pakhar Singh, is an individual whose wealth consists of movable as well as immovable properties. Original returns for the assessment years under consideration were filed on 28th Feb., 1974, which were subsequently revised by furnishing returns for all the years on 28th March, 1979. The assessments for all the assessment years were completed under s. 16(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (for short, “the Act”), on 20th March, 1980, i.e., within one year of the filing of the revised returns. The assessee went in appeal and the assessments were set aside to the file of the AO. Fresh assessments were made by the WTO on 30th June, 1983, which were objected to by the assessee by filing the appeals before the learned AAC, Jalandhar, who vide his consolidated order dt. 27th March, 1986, quashed the assessments being barred by limitation. The Department filed appeals against the order of the AAC before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Department vide its consolidated order dt. 27th Aug., 1990.
The Revenue sought reference of a question of law arising therefrom for the reason that there were different opinions of various High Courts on the issue as to whether a belated return could be revised or not and the revised return so filed could be dealt with by the AO or not. The opinion on the one side being by the Delhi High Court in O.P. Malhotra vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 379 (Del) the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.B. Bhargava vs. CIT (1982) 30 CTR (All) 260 : (1982) 136 ITR 559 (All), the Rajasthan High Court in Vimalchand vs. CIT (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 52 : (1985) 155 ITR 593 (Raj) and the Kerala High Court in Eapen Joseph vs. CIT (1987) 64 CTR (Ker) 324 : (1987) 168 ITR 26 (Ker). The above judgments were taking the view that a belated return filed could not be revised and consequently the same being invalid could not have been treated and acted upon as revised return. The view on the other side was by the Calcutta High Court in Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 323 : (1982) 137 ITR 722 (Cal) and Balish Singh and Co. vs. CIT (1986) 56 CTR (Cal) 88 : (1987) 165 ITR 575 (Cal) by the Madras High Court in Nanjappa Textiles vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 109 (Mad). The question was referred to this Court for opinion for the reason that there were divergent of opinions of different High Courts on the issue of there being no judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the jurisdictional High Court at the relevant time.
Learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute that the issue has been gone into by the hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (supra). After examining the issue in detail under the provisions of the IT Act, which are similar to the provisions under consideration under the Act, views taken by the Delhi High Court in O.P. Malhotra vs. CIT (supra), the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.B. Bhargava vs. CIT (supra), the Rajasthan High Court in Vimalchand vs. CIT (supra) and the Kerala High Court in Eapen Joseph vs. CIT (supra) were approved whereas the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Kumar Jagadish Chandra’s case (supra), was reversed and it was held that a belated return filed under s. 139(4) of the Act could not be revised and the revised returns filed being invalid in law could not have been acted upon. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra’s case (supra) was followed by this Court in CIT vs. Smt. Jyoti Dhillon (1997) 143 CTR (P&H) 302 : (1998) 231 ITR 102 (P&H) and by the Delhi High Court in Suram Chand Rahlan vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 927 (Del). The facts of the present case, being not in dispute that the assessee filed belated returns for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 to 1973-74 under s. 15 of the Act on 28th Feb., 1974, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra’s case (supra) the same could not be revised and consequently acted upon. Accordingly, the question of law referred to this Court is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
[Citation : 299 ITR 287]
