Section 139(4)

Section 139(4) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 139(4), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v CCIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my return late. When is the 276CC offence committed, and is it still a first offence?
  The offence is committed on the day immediately following the s.139(1) due date, not on the day you eventually file. Both defaults here therefore preceded the first show-cause notice, both qualified as a 'first offence' under the 2014 compounding guidelines, and compounding could not be refused on that ground.
• Sasi Enterprises v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  The firm never filed its returns and the assessments were made under s.144. Can we get the s.276CC complaint discharged because the assessment was still being fought?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the s.276CC offence is complete on the failure to furnish the return in due time and is unrelated to the pendency of the assessment. The proviso does not help unless the return was furnished before the end of the assessment year or the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, less advance tax and TDS, is within the statutory figure — and by s.278E the court presumes the culpable mental state, leaving it to the accused to displace it beyond reasonable doubt.
• Prakash Nath Khanna v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I missed the due date but I did file the return under s.139(4) before the assessment. Doesn't that mean I filed 'in due time' and cannot be prosecuted under s.276CC?
  No. The only place the Act fixes a time for furnishing the return is s.139(1); s.139(4) merely permits a belated return, and filing one does not wipe out the infraction of having missed the s.139(1) date. Whether the failure was wilful is a question for the trial court, where s.278E requires the court to presume a culpable mental state and leaves it to you to prove its absence.
• Diebold Nixdorf India Pvt. Ltd. v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I opted for s.115BAA in my return but filed Form 10-IC late, and my return itself was belated. CBDT has refused to condone the delay because Circular No. 6/2022 requires the return to have been filed within the s.139(1) due date. Is that a good reason?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that filing the return within the s.139(1) due date is not a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of s.115BAA — s.115BAA(5) requires the declaration in Form 10-IC to be filed within that time, not the return — so the first condition in the Board's circular cannot by itself defeat a condonation application. And even where the circular's conditions are not met, the Board retains its independent power under s.119(2)(b) to condone the delay dehors the circular. The delay of 23 days was condoned and the assessment directed to be modified to tax the company under s.115BAA.
• Sirez Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps department
  I filed my return years late and I am owed a TDS refund. Will the High Court set aside a refusal to condone the delay?
  Not without evidence. The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition and left the refusal standing. A generic explanation for a thirty month delay, unsupported by any document, is not 'genuine hardship', and the fact that returns for the years on either side were filed on time told against the company.
• Sumit Pendharkar v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  TDS was cut on the whole sale price of my flat and I missed the deadline to file. Can the Commissioner refuse to condone the delay?
  Not on these facts. The Gujarat High Court set aside a refusal to condone delay under s.119(2)(b) where a non-resident had tax deducted at source on the gross sale consideration although he had no tax liability at all, and where the Commissioner had passed an ex parte order ignoring a medical certificate explaining why the notice went unanswered. The matter was remanded with a direction to pass a fresh order condoning the delay.
• PCIT-1, Chennai v M/s. British Agro Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  I grow button mushrooms in trays under controlled temperature in a shed and claim the income as agricultural income under s.10(1). The Assessing Officer says it is business income. Where does that stand?
  Against you, in the Madras High Court. The Court held that income from the sale of white button mushrooms grown in a factory under controlled conditions does not fall within any of the three limbs of s.2(1A) and so is not exempt under s.10(1), allowed the Revenue's appeals and answered both substantial questions against the assessee. That result is squarely opposed to the Hyderabad Special Bench in DCIT v. Inventaa Industries Pvt. Ltd., which the Tribunal below had followed, and appeals against Inventaa were recorded as still pending before the Telangana High Court.
• Technovaa Plastic Industries Private Limited v Central Board of Direct Taxes High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The resolution professional never filed the company's returns during the insolvency process. The new management filed them late and the carry forward of losses has gone. Will the Board condone the delay?
  It must, on these facts. The Gujarat High Court quashed the Board's order refusing condonation under s.119(2)(b) for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and condoned the delay itself, holding that where the suspended management had lost all powers from the date of admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the resolution professional had neither had the accounts audited nor filed the returns, and the new management filed them promptly after the resolution plan was approved, refusing condonation would frustrate the very purpose of the approved resolution plan and would amount to genuine hardship.
• Sada Kesava Reddy v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My belated return showed a refund due, so no tax was payable on regular assessment and the proviso to s.276CC protects me. Can I be discharged on that ground before trial?
  Not on this authority. The Telangana High Court held that whether the accused was entitled to a refund, whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return in due time, and whether the notice was validly served are all matters to be decided only after a full trial, and refused to interfere with the dismissal of the discharge application. It also applied the settled position that the benefit of the proviso is available only to a voluntary return under s.139(1) filed before the failure is detected, and not once a notice under s.142(1)(i) or s.148 has been issued.
• R. Banumathy v Commissioner of Income Tax-I High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My client missed the s.10(10C) exemption in the original return, filed a revised return that the officer lodged as invalid, and the Commissioner rejected the s.264 revision. Is there anything left?
  Yes. The Madras High Court set aside the s.264 order and directed refund of the excess tax, holding that the exemption under s.10(10C) up to five lakh rupees was available to the employee of a bank under an early retirement option scheme and that Rule 2BA cannot cut down the section. It added that where an assessee pays excess tax it is the Department's bounden duty to tell him of the reliefs he is entitled to and to refund the excess.
• CIT v S.R. Batliboi & Associates High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The revised partnership deed was not filed with the return but was produced during the assessment. Does s.185 still disallow the partners' remuneration?
  No, on this judgment. The Calcutta High Court held that s.185 read with s.184, although worded in emphatic terms, is not intended to be mandatory. The Assessing Officer had refused to treat the return as defective under s.139(9); having refused that, he could not simultaneously hold the return to be in derogation of s.184(4) and disallow the deduction. The disallowance of Rs. 4,49,60,000 of partners' remuneration was deleted.
• CIT v Jagriti Aggarwal High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I sold my house, bought the new one after 31 July but before the end of the assessment year, and never opened a Capital Gains Account — do I lose the section 54 exemption?
  No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held on 3 October 2011 that the due date in section 54(2) for furnishing the return under section 139(1) is subject to the extended period allowed by section 139(4). Sub-section (4) is not an independent provision; it operates on the time allowed by sub-section (1) and must be read with it, functioning in effect as a proviso to it. So an assessee who buys or constructs the new house, or deposits the gain, before the section 139(4) date keeps the exemption. Here the sale was on 13 January 2006, the purchase on 2 January 2007, and the return filed on 28 March 2007.
• Sitaldas K. Motwani v Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund claim is late and the Commissioner has refused to condone the delay under section 119(2)(b) because I had no good reason for filing late — is that the right test?
  No, that alone is too narrow. The Bombay High Court held that 'genuine hardship' in section 119(2)(b) must be construed liberally, and the authority is not confined to asking whether some substantial cause prevented a timely return. Refusing condonation can throw out a meritorious claim at the threshold, whereas condoning it means at worst that the matter is decided on merits. On the correctness of the refund claim the authority must see only that a prima facie case exists that is not bound to fail for an apparent defect, not prejudge the merits. The refusal was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
• CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I did not put the unused capital gain into the capital gains account scheme by the due date under section 139(1). Have I lost the section 54 exemption?
  Not necessarily. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the exemption for the whole gain of Rs 29,73,048. Section 54(2) requires the unutilised gain to be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, and section 139 there cannot mean only section 139(1); it means all the sub-sections, including sub-section (4). So an assessee who utilises the gain before the time allowed by section 139(4) has complied. The Court applied the settled rules that a beneficial provision is construed to advance its purpose and that no words are to be added to a plain provision.
• Gluhend India Private Limited v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed this year's return late under section 139(4). The Assessing Officer has now refused to carry forward a capital loss and unabsorbed depreciation that both came from the earlier year, whose return was on time. Can he do that?
  No, on the Tribunal's reasoning. Section 80 read with s.139(3) attaches to the year in which the loss arises: if the return for the loss year was filed within the s.139(1) time, the loss has already become eligible for carry forward, and a belated return for a later year does not extinguish it. Unabsorbed depreciation stands on a stronger footing still — it is governed by s.32(2), and the s.80 restriction does not apply to it at all.
• Tanisha Chaudhary v Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(4), Noida ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My AY 2020-21 return was 72 days late because of Covid and the short-term capital loss was refused. Four years on I want to set that loss off against this year's gains. Can I argue the delay in the current year's appeal?
  No. The Delhi Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that s.80 makes it mandatory to file the return of loss in terms of s.139(3), and that where the carry forward was denied when the loss year's return was processed under s.143(1), the remedy against that denial does not lie in an appeal for the later set-off year. Kulu Valley Transport was distinguished on its facts.
• Saguna Rural Foundation v Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  CPC denied my s.11(2) accumulation because Form 10 was filed after the s.139(1) due date, and the CIT(A) said s.13(9) settles it. Can the Tribunal still help me?
  Yes. Following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v Sakal Relief Fund, the Mumbai Tribunal held that filing Form No. 10 before completion of assessment satisfies s.11(2), so a s.143(1) denial founded only on the s.139(1) due date cannot stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of checking that the stated purpose of accumulation matches the objects and is backed by a trustees' resolution, with an express direction not to deny exemption on merely technical grounds.
• Khalsae-Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed Form 10-ID and my first return under s.115BAB after the s.139(1) due date but within the s.139(4) time. The CPC has now denied me the 15 per cent rate in a later year. Is the option gone for good?
  Not on these facts. The Delhi Tribunal held that where the substantive conditions of s.115BAB are undisputedly satisfied, the failure to file Form 10-ID on or before the s.139(1) due date is a procedural lapse and is not a fatal flaw, and allowed the appeal for AY 2023-24. The Form there had been filed in the very first year, along with a first return that was belated but within the s.139(4) window.
• Rohit Khandelwal v AC/DCIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I disclosed the seized cash and paid the s.115BBE tax, but my return was a belated one under s.139(4). The AO says the proviso to s.271AAC(1) only saves a return under s.139(1). Is he right?
  No. The proviso says "return of income furnished under section 139" and does not confine itself to s.139(1); the Tribunal held that where the legislature meant a particular sub-section it said so, and deleted the penalty on a belated return filed under s.139(4).
• Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari v ADIT (CPC) ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  CPC denied my society's 80P in a 143(1) intimation because the return was late. Can it?
  Not outright. The Tribunal accepted the submission that a debatable issue cannot be adjusted under s.143(1)(a), and said that a co-operative society whose s.80P claim is valid and substantiated should not be denied it merely because the return was late - but it did not quash the intimations and did not decide the s.80AC(ii) question. It remitted all three appeals to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, allowing them for statistical purposes, and expressly directed that the decision is confined to its own facts and is not to be treated as a precedent.
• Paramsukh Infradevelopers LLP v Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My LLP was not required to be audited, but the partners had the accounts audited anyway. The CPC treated the return as belated and refused the carry forward of the business loss. Was the return late?
  No. The Agra Tribunal held that where the partners of an LLP that is exempt from audit under the first proviso to Rule 24(8) of the LLP Rules 2009 decide to have the accounts audited, the second proviso requires the audit to be carried out in accordance with those Rules, and the LLP then becomes a person whose accounts are 'required to be audited ... under any other law for the time being in force' within Explanation 2(a)(ii) to s.139(1). The due date accordingly moved to 30 September, the return filed on 17 September was in time, and the business loss was allowed to be carried forward.
• Harminder Kaur v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  I filed a belated return and only invested after 31 July. Can the AO deny my 54 exemption?
  Not on that ground, if the investment came before the belated return was filed. The Tribunal read sub-section (4) of section 139 as in substance a proviso to sub-section (1), so the section 54 reinvestment period runs to the extended filing date, and booking a flat with a builder counts as purchase even without possession or a registered deed.
• Statutory position — ss.41 and 43 of the Black Money Act and s.72(c): the penalty of three times the tax computed under s.10, the Rs 10 lakh penalty for not reporting a foreign asset in the return with its twenty lakh rupee proviso from 1 October 2024, and the deemed year of acquisition for an asset acquired before commencement CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client's Black Money assessment covers a foreign account opened in 2009 and not declared under the one-time compliance window. The department has charged tax and a penalty of three times the tax, and says the year is fixed by s.72(c). What do those provisions actually say?
  Section 41 provides that the Assessing Officer may direct that, in a case where tax has been computed under s.10 in respect of undisclosed foreign income and asset, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax if any payable by him, "a sum equal to three times the tax computed under that section". It is therefore a multiple of the tax computed under s.10, and it follows the s.10 computation — if the computation goes, the base of the penalty goes with it. Section 43 is a different and smaller penalty: where a resident other than not ordinarily resident within s.6(6) of the Income-tax Act has furnished a return under s.139(1), (4) or (5) of that Act and fails to furnish any information, or furnishes inaccurate particulars, in that return relating to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India held by him as beneficial owner or otherwise, or in respect of which he was a beneficiary, or relating to any income from a source located outside India, the Assessing Officer "may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten lakh rupees". Its proviso, as substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024, reads: "Provided that this section shall not apply in respect of an asset or assets (other than immovable property), where the aggregate value of such asset or assets does not exceed twenty lakh rupees." The footnote on the departmental page records that before that substitution the proviso excluded only "an asset, being one or more bank accounts having an aggregate balance which does not exceed a value equivalent to five hundred thousand rupees at any time during the previous year". Section 72(c), in the removal-of-doubts provision at the end of the declaration chapter, is the hinge of the retrospectivity argument and reads: "where any asset has been acquired or made prior to commencement of this Act, and no declaration in respect of such asset is made under this Chapter, such asset shall be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which a notice under section 10 is issued by the Assessing Officer and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly".
• Statutory position — s.3 of the Black Money Act: the charge at thirty per cent, the proviso to s.3(1) that fixes the year of charge for an undisclosed foreign asset, and what ss.4 and 5 bring in and refuse to take out CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The department has issued a Black Money Act notice for a foreign bank account opened in 2007. The Act only came into force in 2015. On what does the charge on that asset actually rest, and in which year is it charged?
  On s.3(1) and its proviso. The Act came into force on 1 July 2015 (s.1(3): "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2015"). Section 3(1) charges tax "on every assessee for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 ... in respect of his total undisclosed foreign income and asset of the previous year at the rate of thirty per cent of such undisclosed income and asset". The proviso to s.3(1) is the provision that matters for an old asset: "Provided that an undisclosed asset located outside India shall be charged to tax on its value in the previous year in which such asset comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer." So the year of charge for an asset is not the year of acquisition but the year of coming to notice, and s.3(2) defines the "value of an undisclosed asset" as its fair market value determined in the prescribed manner. Section 4(1) puts three things into the total: (a) undisclosed income from a source outside India, (b) income from a source outside India where a return was required under s.139 of the Income-tax Act and none was furnished in time, and (c) the value of an undisclosed asset located outside India. Section 4(2) keeps out of the total any variation made under ss.29 to 43C, ss.57 to 59 or s.92C of the Income-tax Act, and s.4(3) keeps what is charged here out of total income under that Act. Section 5(1)(i) forbids any deduction for expenditure or allowance and any set off of loss, "whether or not it is allowable in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act"; s.5(1)(ii) allows one reduction only — income already assessed or assessable under the Income-tax Act or under this Act is reduced from the value of the undisclosed asset if the assessee furnishes evidence to the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the asset was acquired from that income — and s.5(2) prorates that reduction for immovable property.
• CBDT Circular No. 10/2015 — APA rollback CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  I want the four rollback years with my APA. Can I pick only the years that help me, and what will knock rollback out before I start?
  You cannot pick and choose: the applicant has to either apply for all the four years or not apply at all, subject only to the transaction not existing in a year or the rollback conditions failing in a year. Rollback is not available for a year in which the return was filed under s.139(4), nor where the Tribunal has finally disposed of the appeal on the arm's length price of that transaction, and it can never reduce the total income or increase the loss declared in the return.
• Ranchi Club Ltd v CIT (Patna) High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  I filed my return on time and paid the self-assessment tax; the officer then added a disputed item in a best-judgment assessment and charged s.234A interest because I did not comply with a s.142(1) notice. Is that right?
  The Patna High Court said no. Where the return was filed within time with proof of payment, the mere issue of a s.142(1) notice calling for accounts or information does not attract s.234A, because the s.142(1) notice that s.234A speaks of is the notice to FURNISH A RETURN issued to a person who has not filed one — not the notice under clauses (ii) and (iii) calling for accounts or particulars.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.