← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Ponraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 8(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 714/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponraj, Income Tax Officer, No. 307, W Block, Vs. Non Corp, Ward 8(5), C Sector, 20Th Street, Chennai. Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 101. [Pan:Avlpp-6598-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Jan Seva Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

under Section the due date for submitting the Income Tax Return under Section the due date for submitting the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 139(1) of the Act. 6.5 In the present case, the appellant submitted Form 10B on In the present case

Mrs. Purnima Paul, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Purnima Paul, Flat V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – No. 501, A20, Happy Valley बनाम 3(2), Room No. 4, B Wing, Homes, Tikujinawadi Road, Ashar It Park, Thane West – Chitalsar, Manpada, Thane 400 601, Maharashtra – 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Asnpp4776H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Balasubramanian Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Vanaja, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Hosur, Hosur Tamil Nadu

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mrs. Vanaja, The Ito, 43/B, Chandra Chudeswar Nagar, Ward-1, Hosur-636 701, Hosur. Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Acdpv 9863 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca [By Virtual] : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271F

assessee has not complied with the said notice. The assessee has not filed the return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) and has also not filed the return of income on or before 31.03.2018, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated

Dd122 Harur & Pr Patti Tk Ghss &Ghs Employees Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Society, Dharmapuri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1333/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Dd 122 Harur & Pr Patti Tk Ghss & The Ito, Ghs Employees Co-Op. Thrift & Ward-1, Credit Society, Dharmapuri. 1/16,Kanikaran Kottai, Sikkampatti V. Muthampatti Veppilaimithempatti, Dharmapuri-636 903. [Pan: Aadah 1485 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 2432/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeejoint Commissioner Of Vs Gateway Distriparks Ltd Income-Tax (Osd), Central Sector 6, Dronagiri, Taluka Uran, Circle 2(1), Mumbai, Raigad. 8Th 804, Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aaacg3425C 400 020 Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250

modify the above grounds of appeal in or before the final hearing.” 3. The assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

Infinity Cars Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT03 Central Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JCIT (OSD) I/C. to DCIT Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1133/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeejcit(Osd) I/C. To Dcit Circle- Vs Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited 1(3)(1), Mumbai 50A, Garware House, Swami Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)(i)Section 41

brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by confirming the additions on research and development expenditure under section 35(1

Heaven Mahendra Shah, Vile Parle (West) vs. Asst. CIT - 33(1), Mumbai, Bandra (East)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6361/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt.Renu Jauhriheaven Mahendra Shah Vs Asst. Cit-33(1), Mumbai C-12, 7Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar 501/502, Cosmos, N.M. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), 056 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aagps3148F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal, CA a/w Shri Ajay Daga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi - SR DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

under section 143(3), date of order 28/12/2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act and declared total income amount to Rs. 1,24,64,340/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the notices under

Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 13ASection 143(3)

apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub-section (1)". 11.2 Further, as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, Every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this

Victory Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5534/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah, Mandvi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 56/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rupalkumar Kantilal Shah Vs. Cit(A), Delhi Harihant Kt Shah Road, Sheth Wali Delhi – 110001 Street, Na Vapora, Mandvi - 370465 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoyps3626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 06.12.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section (U/S.) 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 27.11.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Regularity & Consistency Of Business Even Though The Same Has Been Acknowledged In The Order 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts In Not Considering The Evidence Furnished By Your Appellant During The Course Of The Proceedings. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A To Determine & Tax Income In The Hands Of Your Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Ny Green Energy Private Limited Formely Know As Sunkon Energy Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Aravinda Bhupathiraju Rep by Gpa Holder Sri Kar Bahadur Sri Raja, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Internal Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

perused the material available on record. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act but has filed return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. However, it is the contention

Sree Shantinath Munisuvarat Swamy Rajendra Suri Jain Trust, Tanuku vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: FixedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

grounds of appeal and written submission, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not filed any valid Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, in its explanations, the appellant claimed that the entire profit earned

Suresh Dharnia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 236/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

failed to appreciate that the contributions to EPF/ESI were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), and there was no intention to withhold or misuse such funds. 2. That the bona fide intent of the appellant and practical difficulties should have been

Suresh Dharnia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 235/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

failed to appreciate that the contributions to EPF/ESI were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), and there was no intention to withhold or misuse such funds. 2. That the bona fide intent of the appellant and practical difficulties should have been