COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KALYANI SELECTION KARGALLIA COLLIERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Patna, has submitted the statement of case under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), and referred the following question for the opinion of this court:

(2.) THE facts are not at all in controversy. THE statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1965-66. THE assessee is a partnership concern deriving income from coal mining business. A notice under Section 139(2) dated June 1, 1965, was issued by the ITO, Colliery Circle, Dhanbad. THE assessee, however, filed a return before the ITO, Special Circle, Ranchi, on August 6, 1966 (when the case was transferred to him), with a mark "duplicate" mentioned at the top of the return. As there was delay in riling the return, the ITO levied penalty of Rs. 33,653 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act for the late filing of the return. A copy of that order has been marked as annex. A.

(3.) THE only question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in agreeing with the AAC that posting of a valid return within the time allowed under certificate of posting was sufficient evidence of the return having been filed within time. This question can no 'longer be said to be open to doubt. It is needless for us to detain ourselves in enumerating a series of decisions with regard to the nature of presumption arising out of such posting. We, therefore, confine ourselves to refer to only two decisions, one of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the other of the Supreme Court. In the case of Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102, at page 112, it was held that: