Diwaker Tripathi Vs PCIT-17 & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Summary: The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition arising from an incorrect return filed by the petitioner for Assessment Year 2013-2014. The petitioner had filed his return on 28th March 2015 declaring total income of Rs.12,48,160/-. While filing the ITR, he mistakenly treated the assessment year as the financial year and consequently entered details relating to Assessment Year 2014-2015 in the return for Assessment Year 2013-2014.
The return was processed and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 17th October 2015, raising a demand of Rs.3,06,080/-. During processing, the legitimate tax credit relating to tax deducted by one of the petitioner’s two employers was not granted, while credit for tax deducted by the employer for Assessment Year 2013-2014 was correctly granted despite the petitioner not having claimed it in his return. The petitioner subsequently filed his return for Assessment Year 2014-2015 showing the correct income.
The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 264. The Court noted that, before the Finance Act, 2016, Section 139(4) permitted a belated return to be furnished within the prescribed period, whereas Section 139(5) permitted a revised return where the original return had been furnished under Section 139(1) or pursuant to notice under Section 142(1). Since the petitioner had filed the relevant return under Section 139(4), he had no option of filing a revised return under the then applicable Section 139(5) and therefore resorted to revision under Section 264.
