Nelco (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

counsels: rakesh kumar for the assessee ashok kumar for the revenue. head note: income tax return--belated returnwhether can be revisedreturn of income was filed by the assessee under section 139(4) and subsequently another return of income was filed on the ground that deduction under section 35b had not been adequately claimed in the original return. held: as the return filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised under section 139(5), the revised return filed by the assessee was invalid. income tax act, 1961 s.139(5) income tax act, 1961, s.139(4) in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & k.n. ojha, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderthe income tax appellate tribunal, new delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for opinion to this court:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the return of income filed by the assessee on 13-3-1980 under section 139(4) could not be revised under section 139(5) by filing another return on 4-1-1982?'2. the present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80 the applicant had filed the return of income of rs. 99,374 on 8-3-1980, which was under the provisions of section 139(4) of the act. subsequently on 4-1-1982 it filed a return of income of rs. 6,830 on the ground that the deduction under section 35b of the act had not been adequately claimed in the original return. the income tax officer ignored the revised return as according to him the return originally filed on 13-3-1980 was not a return filed under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139 of the act and therefore, it could not have been revised under section 139(5) of the act. the revised return was held to be not a valid return and was consequently ignored. however, the cit (a) agreed with the contention of the applicant and while allowing the appeal directed the income tax officer to admit the revised return and consider the claim for deduction under section 35b of the act. the revenue preferred an appeal before the income tax appellate tribunal and the tribunal had set aside the order passed by the cit (a) by holding that the return filed under section 139(4) of the act cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the act.we have heard sri rakesh kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and sri ashok kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.3. the controversy has now been settled by the apex court in the case of kumar jagdish chandra sinha v. cit : [1996]220itr671(all) . the apex court has held that no revised return can.....