Ganesh Shenoy Panchmal (HUF) By its Karta \\u2013 Ganesh Shenoy P V. Commissioner of Income Tax Mangalore and Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)

WP/40899/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Ganesh Shenoy Panchmal (HUF), represented by its Karta, Ganesh Shenoy, who filed writ petitions against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Mangalore. The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 21.3.2014 and 18.2.2013, claiming that the income assessed and the tax demand raised were incorrect. The petitioner argued that the rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act was wrongly rejected by the 2nd respondent, and the revision under Section 264 was also rejected. The court found that the petitioner did not furnish proper details as required under Section 139(5) and directed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer to satisfy the requirements and explain the circumstances under which the rectification application was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794091 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI LAVA
• Keywords: Assessment; Hindu Undivided Family; Income Tax; Mistake apparent from record; Rectification
• Section: 154; 143(1); 264; 139(5); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 11th day of December, 2014 Before THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH Writ Petitions 40899 - 40900 / 2014 (T) Between Ganesh Shenoy Panchmal (HUF) By its Karta – Ganesh Shenoy P 61 yrs, 2-01-2/22, Sri Krishna Hill Grove, Chilimbi Hills Mangalore Petitioner (By Sri Annamalai & M Lava Adv. For Sri A Shankar, Adv.) And 1 Commissioner of Income Tax Mangalore, I Floor, C R Building N G Road, Attavar, Mangalore 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), C R Building N G Road, Attavar, Mangalore Respondents (By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.) Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to set aside the order dated 21.3.2014 – annexure A by the 1st respondent, etc. The Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made the following: 2 ORDER Petitioner has sought quashing of the orders at annexures A and E dated 21.3.2014 and 18.2.2013 respectively by the 1st and 2nd respondents and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass an order under S.154 of the Income Tax Act considering the correct return of income produced by the petitioner, in accordance with law. As per the averment made, petitioner is a hindu undivided family who filed the original return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 31.7.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.46,810/- and the tax payable as nil, as at annexure B and also claimed refund of tax deducted at source in a sum of Rs.84,190/-. The same was processed by the 2nd respondent under S.143(1) of the Act who determined the total income of the petitioner at Rs.7,35,050/- and raised a demand of balance tax payable in a sum of Rs.57,130/- after adjusting the tax deducted at source i.e., Rs.84,190/- which was intimated as at annexure C. After receipt of the intimation, petitioner on realizing that the income under S.143(1) has been adopted wrongly and is not based on correct figures, made an application under S.154 of the Act - annexure D for rectification of the mistake in the intimation issued at annexure C. Against the rectification application, 2nd respondent passed an order rejecting the same as not maintainable. 3 Petitioner also filed a revision under S.264 of the Act before the 1st respondent on 5.3.2013 – annexure F which also came to be rejected on 21.3.2014 – annexure A. Hence, these petitions. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is, the rectification application filed is in accordance with the true figures and the same ought to have been accepted. The revision filed against the rejection of the rectification application has also been rejected. It is pointed out by the petitioner that there is a mistake apparent from the record and the same is amenable for rectification under S.154 of the Act, however, the 2nd respondent failed to appreciate the same. According to the counsel, the income of the petitioner is only Rs.46,810/- as per the original return which was duly acknowledged by the Department. The acknowledgement contains the summary of the gross total income, etc. However, the same has been disputed by the Revenue stating that the acknowledgement is only for receipt of the assessment filed and is not acceptance of the contents of the return filed thereon and it is subject to verification, scrutiny and reassessment. It is the further submission of the counsel that except the return filed earlier there is no other change in the return filed for the second time or revision of the assessment made earlier as per S.139(5) of the Act. 4 The procedure adopted by the petitioner appears to be without furnishing proper details as to the different sources of income except filing a revised return by way of overwriting on some of the figures which does not satisfy the requirement of S.139(5) of the Act. Having heard, the very stand taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer to satisfy the requirement and also explain under what circumstances he made an application, whether it is in compliance of S.139(5) of the Act and if not, comply the same, according to law. It is for the Assessing Officer either to modify or pass appropriate orders, according to law. Petitions are disposed of. Impugned orders at annexures A and E are quashed with a condition that petitioner shall approach the Assessing Officer, as noted above. All contentions are kept open to be urged before the Assessing Officer. Sd/- Judge An "