Case Law Details
Sri Deepak Dhanaraj Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
In this case AO has not whispered about the revised return filed by the assessee except observing that the returns filed by the assessee were invalidated being defective returns. If that being the position, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner under section 139(9) of the Act to remove the defects in the returns pointed out by the assessing officer nor an opportunity was provided to file a return pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Even assuming that the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue that no revised returns could be accepted enlarging the claim of deduction/exemption beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it is sine-qua-non for the assessing officer to consider the claims of deduction/exemption made by the petitioner-assessee and thereafter to return the said claims if the assessee is not entitled to the same by assigning the reasons. The impugned assessment order prima-facie establishes that the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act is not considered while computing the taxable turnover. This would certainly indicates the non-application of mind by the respondent.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner has challenged the assessment Order, dated 24-12-2018 relating to the assessment year 2016-17 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and the consequent demand notice, dated 24-12-2018 issued under section 156 of the Act, inter alia challenging the recovery notice, dated 23-2-2019 issued by the respondent to Corporation Bank, Koramangala-PBB, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner is an assessee borne on the files of the respondent, has been subjected to tax on income. It is submitted by the petitioner-assessee that he has filed a return of income on 30-3-2018 relating to the assessment year 2016-17, offering to tax the capital gains along with other sources of income. The said return is held to be a defective return. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a revised return on 18-9-2018 declaring the long term capital gains and claiming deduction under section 48 and exemption under section 54F of the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing had proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act sans considering the return and the revised return vis-à-vis the claims made towards deduction/exemption under sections 48 and 54F of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
