TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner had filed income tax return for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 on 01.11.2004. Thereafter, an assessment order was passed on 29.12.2006. 4. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application dated 02.01.2007 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the 2nd respondent, for rectification of mistake of the assessment order dated 29.12.2006. By an order dated 17.01.2007, the assessment order passed on 29.12.2006 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was modified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed a revised return and claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dismissing the petitioner's appeal and remitted the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to pass a speaking order. 12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in the remand proceeding passed a fresh order on 28.10.2011 and partly allowed the aforesaid appeal. However, the said appeal did not deal with issues relating to the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it was not subject matter of Appeal. 13. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal in ITA.No.19/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and in ITA No.1835/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2003-04 before the Income Tax Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to deny the substantive benefit of exemption and the same could be even furnished subsequent to filing of the return of income. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions of the Court:- i. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s.AKS Alloys P.Ltd.,(2012) 18 taxman.com25 (Madras). ii. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mahrashtra vs. M/s.G.M.Knitting Industries P.Ltd., (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 35(SC). iii. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Punjab Financial Corporation, (2002) 121 Taxmann 656 (Punjab & Haryana) (FB). 19. In the 1st mentioned case, the court held that non filing of form/certificate along with the return was not mandatory. It was further submitted that similar view was taken in the 2nd mentioned ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(5) for filing a revised return, being 31.3.2008, had lapsed. Suffice it to say that, on the facts of this case, the remedy under Section 264 is appropriate and ought to have been exercised in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner of Income tax. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. 21. A further reliance was placed on the following decision of the Court :- i. Chandrakant J Patel Vs. V.N.Srivastava, (2011) 339 ITR 330. ii. Parekh Bros. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 150 ITR 105. iii. The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramani Realtors P Ltd., TCA.No.730 of 2014 iv. Rashtriya Vikas Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 60 Taxman 74. 22. Defending the orders of the 1st respondent, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 2nd 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. 27. However, in the course of such a re-assessment proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 30. 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. 31. 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....