COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BHILAI MAHILA SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred to this court for opinion :

(2.) THE assessee, Bhilai Mahila Samaj, Bhilai, is a charitable trust and is being assessed to tax in the status of an association of persons. Return was filed on August 31, 1978. Exemption was claimed under Section 11(1) for Rs. 45,000, as the amount was applied for charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year. THE return so filed, according to the provisions of Section 139 of the Act, was due on June 30, 1978. An application in Form No. 6 for extension of time for filing the return up to August 31, 1978, was duly filed on June 30, 1978. THE assessee did not receive any intimation regarding the disposal, of that application and, therefore, thought that the application was allowed. THE Income-tax Officer pointed out to the assessee that the application in Form No. 6 for extension of time was signed by the person not entitled to sign the return of income, as provided under Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. THE assessee tried to explain that, at the material time, the person authorised was out of station and, therefore, the application was signed by counsel for the assessee. THE Income-tax Officer treated that application in Form No. 6 as invalid and, therefore, took no cognizance of that application. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the Income-tax Officer was incorrect in ignoring that application. THE Department filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. THE Tribunal held that, considering the purpose of the application in Form No. 6, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in ignoring the assessee's application for extension of time. THE appeal of the Department was dismissed. On an application made, the Department asked for a reference to this court. THE Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court.