COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH vs. M. CHANDRA SEKHAR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1299/1973Supreme Court[1985] 2 S.C.R. 21504 December 1984Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee filed voluntary income tax returns for assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63 on August 2, 1963, and for assessment year 1963-64 on August 2, 1964. The Income Tax Officer treated the assessee as being in default for the delay and imposed penalties under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that since interest had been levied under clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1), no penalty could be imposed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the levying of interest implied an extension of time by the Income Tax Officer, and thus cancelled the penalties. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that interest imposition does not automatically imply an extension of time granted upon an application.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in presuming that the Income Tax Officer had extended the time for filing the returns. The Court reasoned that the Income Tax Officer could extend the date for furnishing returns under the proviso to Section 139(1), and was entitled to charge interest only on the basis of an extended period. In the ordinary course, such an extension would only be granted upon being satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee. The Court found no attempt by the Revenue to demonstrate that the Income Tax Officer acted arbitrarily. Therefore, a valid presumption could be raised that the necessary procedure was followed. Consequently, the Court held that the additional time granted upon such an extension falls within the expression 'the time allowed' in Section 271(1)(a), meaning the penalty provision does not come into play. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in concluding that the charging of interest indicated that the Income Tax Officer was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the return of income, under Section 139(1) read with the proviso? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a)? Assessee's Contentions: - Since interest had been levied under clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1), no penalty could be imposed. - The levying of interest implied that the Income Tax Officer had extended the time for filing the returns. Revenue's Contentions: - There was no material to warrant the finding that an application for extension of time had been made by the assessee and allowed by the Income Tax Officer. - The imposition of interest does not warrant the assumption that an application for extension of time was made and allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 271(1)(a),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

, • 215 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. CHANDRA SEKHAR December 4, 1984 [V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.J Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 139(1) read with proviso-In a case where Income Tax Officer levies interest on income tax return.filed after the date prescribed by sub-s.(1) of s.139-whether a valid presumption can be raised that lucome Tax Officer extended time for filing voluntary return under the proviso to Sub. s.(/)ofs.139. Section 21 l(J)(a)-Scope of- Whether penalty can be levied on incom~ tax A B c return filed aft~r the date prescribed by s.139(1) but on which Income Tax Officer D has levied interest under c/.(iii) of the proviso. Held-No. The time allowed by Income Tax Officer under proviso to Sub-s.(1) of s. 139 for filing return falls within the expression "the time allowed'' in cl.(a) of Sub-s.(l) ofs.271. Sub·s.(I) of s.139 of the Income Ta. Act, 1961 prescribes the period within which a volu~tary income tax return must be filed. When an assessee cannot file a return within the prescribed period, the proviso to Sub·s.O) of s.139 entitles the assessee to make an application for extension of time in the prescribed manne

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 7,954 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →