JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. : This is a GT Reference under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958, at the instance of the assessee and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this Court : "(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the return filed prior to the commencement of the assessment year as invalid and non est return ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessment completed on 31st March, 1986, as valid and not barred by limitation ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee made a settlement deed in favour of her daughter-in-law on 13th April, 1972. The assessee filed the GT Return disclosing taxable gift of Rs. 2.30 lakhs on 1st July, 1972 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 in respect of the property settled by her as per the deed of settlement dt. 13th April, 1972. The GTO treated this return as invalid and non est because it was filed before the commencement of assessment year. The assessee also filed a duplicate return on 22nd August, 1977 and it was treated as invalid. The AO issued notice under s. 16(1) of the GT Act on 11th February, 1982 and in response to this, the assessee filed reply on 15th February, 1982. The AO held that it has already become barred by time; therefore, the proceedings under s. 16(1) of the GT Act was initiated. The AO did not accept the request of the assessee and finally assessed the income of the assessee of Rs. 2.30 lakhs under s. 15(5) of the GT Act, on 31st March, 1986. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal challenging the assessment as barred by time before the first appellate Court, who overruled this objection because of acquiescence. However, ex parte order was set aside because AO had not given reasonable opportunity to assessee, the case was remanded. On further appeal, to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held the order of the CGT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this Court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. On further appeal, to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held the order of the CGT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this Court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The word assessment year has been defined in s. 2(iva) of the GT Act, 1958, which reads as under : "Sec. 2(iva) : assessment year means the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year." The word previous year has been defined in s. 2(xx) of the GT Act, 1958. Which reads as under : "Sec. 2(xx) : Previous year in relation to any assessment year, - (a) in the case of an assessee having no source of income, profits or gains or having a source of income, profits or gains in respect of which there is no previous year under the IT Act, means the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March immediately preceding the assessment year; xxx xxx xxx" According to s. 13 of the GT Act, it clearly says that if during the previous year, any taxable gift has been made then the assessee shall, on or before the 30th day of June of the corresponding assessment year, furnish a return of such gifts in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. 6. So far as the present case is concerned, the assessment year is 1973-74 and the previous year was 1972-73, i.e., 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973. The return was filed on 1st July, 1972. This was definitely much prior in time. As per s. 13, it clearly transpires that return has to be filed on or before the 30th day of June of the corresponding assessment year. The assessee could have filed return by 30th June, 1973, but she filed the return on 1st July, 1972. Therefore, this return was no return in the eye of law. Hence, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. 7. So far as the escape assessment is concerned, we have already taken a view that the return filed by the assessee was no return in the eye of law. Therefore, this return was no return in the eye of law. Hence, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. 7. So far as the escape assessment is concerned, we have already taken a view that the return filed by the assessee was no return in the eye of law. The matter was remanded back by the CGT(A) and the notice was also issued under s. 17(1)(a)(b) & (c). But the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as for the assessee submit that the said notice has not been received by them so far. If so, then the period prescribed for reassessment proceeding within the period of two years under s. 16A(1) persuant to the order of the CGT(A) has elapsed; however, we do not express any opinion on this issue. Hence, we answer both the aforesaid questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.