Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court has clarified the scope of powers vested in a Revisional Authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that such an authority is restricted to reviewing existing orders and cannot issue direct instructions to the Assessing Authority without reference to a specific order. The significant ruling came in the case of Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), addressing a writ petition filed by an Non-Resident Indian (NRI) taxpayer concerning his assessment for the financial year 2015-2016.
The petitioner, Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty, had initially filed his income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on August 31, 2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,99,270/- and paying a tax of Rs. 1,17,448/-. This original return, marked as Ext.P1, was subsequently processed by the Assessing Officer, leading to an intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act. This intimation, issued by the 2nd respondent, demanded an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,33,400/-.
Upon receiving this intimation, the petitioner identified certain errors in his initially filed return. To rectify these mistakes, he filed a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act on March 31, 2017. This revised filing, Ext.P2, was submitted within the permissible statutory period for revisions. In this revised return, the petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 1,17,448/-. However, a critical error occurred during the submission: the revised return was mistakenly uploaded as an ‘original’ return instead of a ‘revised’ one. Consequently, this revised return was not processed by the tax authorities, and only the initial return (Ext.P1) was processed.
