Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1538 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 - Deduction u/s 80JJAA denied - order put to jeopardy - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 initiated - as per AO since the petitioner had failed to file return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, the benefit of deduction u/s 80 JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be allowed - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessment which was completed on 29.12.2006 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 reopened with issue of the notice under Section 148 - Thus, the original assessment which was completed on 29.12.2006 as modified by an order dated 17.1.2007 and was put to jeopardy by the respondent. Once notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invoked, the 2 nd respondent has wide power to reassess not only the income escaping keeping assessment but also grant reliefs that are due to an assessee. Such exercise would culminate in a fresh re-assessment order which no doubt has been eventually set aside by the Tribunal. Assessing Officer is also duty-bound to extend substantive benefits which were available and arrive at just tax to be paid. Benefits which are otherwise available to an assessee cannot be denied on the ground of technical failure of an assessee is such assessee is legitimately entitled to such substantive benefit. In this connection, it may be apt to refer to the following quotation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Auriya Chambers of Commerce [1986 (4) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Court held that procedures are handmaids of justice and not mistress of law. In this case, the 2 nd respondent has not given to benefit while reassessing the income of the petitioner while passing order on 29.12.2008. It is precisely for dealing with situations like this, powers have been vested with superior officers like the respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though, orders have to be passed subject to provisions of the Act, the intention of the legislative is not whittle down or deny benefit which are legitimately available to an assessee. Failure to file return within the period under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of claiming benefit of deduction under Section 80 AAJJ of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in my view is a more procedural formality. In my view, denial of substantive benefit cannot be justified since the assessment itself was reopened by the 2 nd respondent and the assessment already made on 29.12.2006 was put to jeopardy. If an assessee is entitled to benefit, technical failure on the part of an assessee to claim the benefit in time, should not come in the grant of substantial benefit/benefits that was/were otherwise available under the Income Tax Act, 1961 but for such technical failure. Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 1 st respondent ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. WP allowed.
|