Court Allows Revised Tax Returns to Correct Errors, Prevent Double Taxation for 2017-18 Assessment Year.

The HC addressed two issues: the dismissal of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and the rejection of a rectification application for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The court upheld the respondent's position that rectification of Income Tax Returns requires the filing of revised returns. Regarding the double assessment of rental income, the court recognized the petitioner's error and allowed the filing of revised returns within 15 days to prevent double taxation. The court directed the Assessing Officer to process the revised returns, emphasizing timely corrections to ensure fair taxation. Both writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenging the order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Challenging the rejection of rectification application for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Issue 1: Challenging the order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner filed a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which was dismissed by the first respondent. The petitioner contended that the respondent can rectify even the Income Tax Returns if wrongly filed. Reference was made to a judgment stating that if there has been an omission by the Assessing Officer in considering the contents of the return, the mistake in assessment can be apparent. The court, after hearing both parties, agreed with the respondent's stance that rectification in Income Tax Returns cannot be made unless revised returns are filed by the petitioner.

Issue 2: Challenging rejection of rectification application for Assessment Year 2017-18:
The petitioner had rental income shown under two heads in the returns, leading to double assessment and payment of taxes. The rectification application was initially rejected but later allowed upon reconsideration, only to be rejected again. The court acknowledged the mistake made by the petitioner in filing returns and the need for rectification. It was emphasized that no one's income should be taxed twice. The court granted permission to the petitioner to file revised returns within 15 days, directing the Assessing Officer to process them accordingly. Failure to file revised returns would render the impugned orders enforceable.

In conclusion, the court disposed of both writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to rectify the error in filing returns to avoid double taxation, emphasizing the importance of filing revised returns promptly to correct such errors and ensure fair taxation.

---