INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR V. BABULAL SAO, BASTAR

MA 9/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue against Shri Babulal Sao, arising from a previous ITA decision. The revenue challenged the validity of an assessment order quashed by the ITAT, arguing that the return filed by the assessee was invalid due to non-submission of 'ITR-V' within the prescribed period. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, held that the return was valid as it was accepted by the Assessing Officer for computation of total income. The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating it sought a review of the earlier decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314343 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Assessment record; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.09/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.308/RPR/2024) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer Ward-Jagdalpur (C.G) .......अपीलाथȸ / Applicant बनाम / V/s. Shri Babulal Sao, Ward No.8, Karpawand, Jagdalpur, Baster-494 001 (C.G.) PAN: DJVPS2973B ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None (Adjournment Petition) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 2 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the revenue arising out of ITA No.308/RPR/2024 for assessment years 2015- 16 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The revenue by filing the captioned miscellaneous application has raised following grounds: “1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction despite the fact that the no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act can be issued in the case of an invalid return?\" 2. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 3. At the time hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, adjournment application has been filed by the assessee which is rejected and the matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR brought to the notice of the Bench Para 17 and Para 18 of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2024 regarding the 3 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 miscellaneous application filed before the tribunal. For the sake of clarity, Para 17 and Para 18 of the Tribunal’s order are culled out as under: “17. Although at the first blush the aforesaid observation of the A.O is found to be very convincing, but I am afraid that a perusal of the assessment record reveals a different story. Although it is the claim of the department that as the assessee had not submitted “ITR-V” with the CPC within the prescribed period of 120 days, therefore, the return of income that was suo-motto filed by him on 31.05.2021 was an invalid return, I am unable to concur with the same. I, say so, for the reason that in case if the return of income filed on 31.05.2021, declaring an income of Rs.7,60,020/- was an invalid return then there could have been no justification for the A.O to have referred to the said return of income and the income therein disclosed for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the A.O as recorded in the assessment order is culled out as under: “12. On the basis of above observations total income of the assessee is computed as under: Income as per return filed on 31.05.2021 Rs.7,60,020/- Add: deemed income u/s. 69A as discussed above Rs.20,21,923/- Total Income Rs.28,41,943/-“ (emphasis supplied by me) As is discernible from the aforesaid extract of the assessment order, the A.O had not only referred to the “ITR-V” that was filed by the assessee but had also taken the income therein returned by the assessee at Rs.7,60,020/- for assessing his total income at Rs.28,41,943/-. 18. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that it is not a case that the assessee had on any earlier occasion filed any return of income for the subject year, i.e. A.Y.2015-16. In fact, the assessee prior to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021 had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the return of income and the income therein disclosed as had been referred by the A.O at Para 12 of his order is the one that was filed by the assessee in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of 4 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 the Act, dated 30.03.2021. Considering the fact that the A.O while framing the assessment had taken due cognizance of the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act, I am unable to comprehend as to how the department can canvass that the assessee had failed to file his return of income.” 5. As clearly mentioned at Para 18 of the order of the Tribunal that “the A.O while framing the assessment had taken due cognizance of the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act, I am unable to comprehend as to how the department can canvass that the assessee had failed to file his return of income…..”. That further, the Tribunal had also noted that if the return of income filed on 31.05.2021, declaring an income of Rs.7,60,020/- was an invalid return then there could have been no justification for the A.O to have referred to the said return of income and the income therein disclosed for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, it is evident that the Tribunal has clearly taken a view that such return that has been filed by the assessee is valid return of income on which the A.O had placed reliance while framing the assessment. I am of the view that the grounds assailed before this bench by the department through the miscellaneous application amounts to review of the decision passed by the Tribunal which is beyond the scope and gamut of jurisdiction envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. 5 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 6. The revenue in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.308/RPR/2024, dated 23.09.2024, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within 6 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 7. I, thus, in terms of the aforesaid observations, am of the view that as the revenue in the garb of the present application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act had, in fact, sought for a review of the order so passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal, which as observed by me hereinabove does not fall within the realm of the powers vested within Section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed. 8. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 8th day of May, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 8th May, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 7 ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur Vs. Shri Babulal Sao MA No.09/RPR/2025 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "