Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 844 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Claim for refund of excess Tax paid/waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C denied - reason assigned for rejection was, the return was not voluntarily filed by the petitioner but consequent upon survey conducted under Section 133A - Held that:- The respondent/Authorities are in agreement on one fact that belated returns cannot be revisited. But under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is authorized to assess reasonable income escaping assessment within a period of four years of returns. That being so, the returns filed by the petitioner which was within the limitation of four years was within the propriety of Assessing Officer, which was overlooked by him. Then it follows that the Revisional Authority had every authority over the returns and revised returns of the petitioner, though was not assessed by the Assessing Officer. Instead of disposing off the revision petition on its merits, it is disposed with a sweeping remark that no order is passed by the Assessing Officer. This Court in the matter of A. Balakrishnan v. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 172 - KARNATAKA High Court] held that the Income-tax authorities are duty bound to process a return claiming refund even though filed beyond the period prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, said finding was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In the matrix on hand, the revisional authority restrained from exercising its jurisdiction for the sole reason that there was no assessment of the returns/revised returns by the Assessing Officer and the same was not proper and it needs to be quashed and matter has to be considered on merits. Thus the petition is allowed
|