M/s. Ganesh Metal Industries, Jammu V. The Income tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 357/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 35720914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Non compliance; Revised return
• Section: 80IB; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP : JAMMU) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN: M/S. GANESH METAL INDUSTRIES, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, BARI BRAHMANA, WARD 1(1), JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:S/SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL & VIJAY GUPTA, RESPONDENT BY:SH.K.V.K. SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/12/2015 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED22.03.2013, PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A), JAMMU. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER AND NOT CONSIDERED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SELECTION OF TH E CASE IN SCRUTINY HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT AS PER THE STATUT ORY REQUIREMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS BARR ED BY LIMITATION. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN DISALLOWING TH E DEDUCTION U/S 80IB TO THE TUNE OF RS.76,99,175/-. 4. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,40,000/- + RS.1,75,000/- AND RS.6 6 LACS ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 2 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND UNEX PLAINED CREDITS. 5. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND FURNISHING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE FORE HIM WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED BEFORE HIM AND AS S UCH, THERE IS NO DENIAL OF JUSTICE. 2. AS PER GROUND NOS. 1 & 2, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER, WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE HIM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SELECTION OF THE CASE IN SCRUTINY HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT AS PER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSES SMENT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF COPPER INGOTS AND WIRE. THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION ON 28.09.2008 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DED UCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T.ACT OF RS.76,99,175. ITR-V WAS SUBMITTED ON 30.09.2008. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CAS S AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.09.2010. THE NO TICE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REVISED RETURN DATE D 24.09.2009 AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN DATED 28.09.200 8. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN DATED 28.09.2008 AND NO VALID REVIS ED RETURN HAD BEEN FILED AND AS SUCH, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS TIME BARRED. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 200809 HAD BEEN FILED ON 24.09.2009, AS PER THE AST SYSTEM, VI DE E- ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.90648360240909 AND THE CASE WAS P ICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. IN VIEW OF SUCH FINDING OF T HE AO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT A SSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DE TAILS AS REQUIRED VIDE THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED. ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 3 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED TH E DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. THE ABSTRACT OF SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS GIVEN AT PAGE 2 TO 7 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. TH E LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE MATER IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING REA SONS: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 24 .09.2009 AS PER THE SYSTEM OF DEPARTMENT. 2. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FILED A COPY OF ITR-V BE FORE THE AO EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE DEFEATED HIS MOTIVE. 3. THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. CRAWFORD BAYLEY &CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA VS. OTHERS 246 CTR (BOM) 459 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL ON MER ITS BEFORE THE AO AND APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE BEFORE ME. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2008 VIDE E-FILING AC KNOWLEDGEMENT NO.41419200280908 AND ITR-V WAS SUBMITTED ON 30.09. 2008 TO ITO WARD-20(1), NEW DELHI VIDE RECEIPT NO.20.10.0000080 3. THE RETURN WAS UPLOADED AS REVISED RETURN VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO . 90648360240909 DATED 24.09.2009, BUT AFTERWARDS, THE ORIGINAL RETU RN WAS CONSIDERED CORRECT AND NO ITR-V FOR THE REVISED RETURN HAD BEE N SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO, IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT THE RETURN, I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE FORM ITR-V HAS NEVER BEEN FILED, WAS NEVER FURNISHE D AND IT SHALL BE INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ELECTRONICALLY RE-TR ANSMIT THE DATA AND FOLLOW IT UP BY SUBMITTING THE NEW FORM ITR-V WITHI N THE PRESCRIBED TIME PERIOD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RULE 12(3)(III) O F THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, PRESCRIBES THE REQUIREMENT OF VERIFICATION OF RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM ITR-V. THE SAID RULE 12(3)(III) OF THE I.T.RUL ES IS AS UNDER: RETURN OF INCOME AND RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFITS. ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 4 12(3) THE RETURN OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (1) MAY BE FURNISHED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS, NAMELY: I) FURNISHING THE RETURN IN A PAPER FORM; II) FURNISHING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY UNDER DIGITAL SIGNATURE; III) TRANSMITTING THE DATA IN THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY AND THEREAFTER SUBMITTING THE VERIFICATION OF THE RETUR N IN FORM ITR-V IV) FURNISHING A BAR-CODED RETURN IN A PAPER FORM. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CIRCULAR NO.03/2009 ISSUED BY THE CBDT CLARIFIED THE MATTER ON ITR-V, AT PARA NO. 9 OF PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE CBDT THAT IF THE FORM ITR-V, IS NOT FURNISHED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THEN IT IS DEEMED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT ASSESSMEN T YEAR WAS NEVER FURNISHED. IN THE SAME WAY, THE ASSESSEE NEVER FU RNISHED THE ITR-V FOR THE REVISED RETURN AT CPC, BANGALORE AND THE PETITI ON WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CBDT REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF I TR-V AT CPC, BANGALORE AND REPLY OF THE GRIEVANCE PETITION WAS R ECEIVED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NO ITR-V FOR THE AY 2008-09 VI DE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.90668360240909 DATED 24.09.2009 HAD BEEN RECEIVE D. THE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM CBDT IS PLACED AT PB-11. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRAWFORD BA YLEY & CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA VS. OTHERS (2012) 246 CTR (DEL) 459 WHERE IN IMPORTANCE OF FILING OF VERIFICATION FORM ITR-V WITH CPC HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND EVEN IN THAT CASE, THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED COMMUNICATION T O THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INVALID RETURN CONSEQUENT DUE TO NON- FILING OF FORM ITR-V. 8. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SI NCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, ITR-V HAS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF NON-FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERED THE RETURN AS INVALID. ANOTHER OPPORTUNI TY OF FILING THE FORM ITR-V WAS GIVEN BY THE COURT TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY O N ACCOUNT OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED MORE THAN THREE TIMES TO SEND THE ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 5 ITR-V AT CPC, BUT THE SAME IS NOT RECEIVED AT CPC A ND TO REACH AT ITS CONCLUSION, THE HONBLE COURT VERIFIED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SENT ANY VERIFI CATION IN FORM ITR-V AT CPC. AS SUCH, THE JUDGMENT IS DULY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE RETURN IS INVALID ON ACCOUNT OF NON COMPLIANCE OF THE I.T. RULES, NO ASS ESSMENT COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE INVALID RETURN. RELIANCE H AS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I) KIALDAS & SONS VS. CIT (1998) 146 CTR (MP) 742 II) CIT VS. HARJINDER KAUR (2009) 222 CTR (P& H) 2 54 THUS, HE PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS AND JUDGMENTS, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO MAY BE QUASHED, AS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS TIME BARRED. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAILED SU BMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS WERE FILED ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE CLEAR FROM THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 18.03.2013. THE LD. CIT(A), DESPITE THE FI LING OF THE VARIOUS DETAILS, DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, WITH THE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PLACED BEFO RE HIM THE DETAILS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 11. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE IM PUGNED ORDER. 12. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THA T THE LD. CIT(A), AT PAGE 3, PARA 3A.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS NOTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE HIM, THAT IT NEVER SUBMITTED VERI FICATION IN FORM ITR-V, OF THE ALLEGED REVISED RETURN, AS PER THE REQUIREME NT OF RULE 12(3)(III) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. RULE 12(3)(III) OF THE I.T. R ULES READS AS FOLLOWS. 12(3) THE RETURN OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (1) MAY BE FURNISHED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS, NAMELY: V) FURNISHING THE RETURN IN A PAPER FORM; ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 6 VI) FURNISHING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY UNDER DIGITAL SIGNATURE; VII) TRANSMITTING THE DATA IN THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY AND THEREAFTER SUBMITTING THE VERIFICATION OF THE RETUR N IN FORM ITR-V VIII) FURNISHING A BAR-CODED RETURN IN A PAPER FORM. 13. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE MATTER AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS E-FILED ON 28.09.2008 VIDE ACKN OWLEDGMENT NO.41419200280908. ITR-V WAS SUBMITTED ON 30.09.200 8 TO ITO WARD 20(1) NEW DELHI. AS PER THE ASSTT. ORDER THE R ETURN WAS E-FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.90648360240 909 ON 24.09.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT FOR RS.76,99,175/-. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HAS NOT FILED THE REVISED RETURN AND NEVER SUBMITTED THE VERIFICATION OF RETURN IN FORM ITR-V AS PER THE REQUIREMENT UNDER RULE 12(3). HE FURTHER ADDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT AWARE AS WHO TRANSMITTED THE DATA IN THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY T O WHICH THE AO IS REFERRING TO E-FILED RETURN I THE FIRST PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE ME AND THE AP PELLANT TOOK SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WANTED TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A VALID RETURN ON 28.09.2008 AN D NOT ON 24.09.2009. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH THE PROOF AS YET. MEANWHILE, I ENQUIRED F ROM THE AO TO CHECK ABOUT THESE TWO RETURNS AND LET ME KNOW THE S TATUS. THE AO AFTER CHECKING FROM THE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM FOUND T HAT BOTH THE RETURNS WERE FILED BUT THE RETURN ON 24.09.2009 HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE SYSTEM AS REVISED. THE APPELLANT IS QUESTIONING THAT HOW CAN IT BE A REVISED RETURN IF IT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE VER IFICATION OF RETURN IN ITR-V TO THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN ALL THESE ARGUMENTS AND VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) BEFORE THE AO ON TECH NICAL GROUNDS ONLY AND DID NOT FURNISH DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM OF 80IB OF RS.76,99,175/-, ACC RETION OF RS.66 LACS TO UNSECURED LOAN, ACCRETION OF RS.13,60,000/. - TO CAPITAL AND ACCRETION OF RS.1,75,000/- TO OTHER CREDITS. BEFORE ME ALSO THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. IT NEITHER FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OR PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF ONUS TO ESTABLISH IDENTIFY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND G ENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO ACCRETION IN UNSECURED L OAN AND OTHER CREDITS. INSTEAD OF SUBMISSION ON MERIT OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EMPHASIS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID, BECA USE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED IN TIME IN RESPECT OF THE ORI GINAL RETURN. ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 7 4.2. I AM NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE APPELLANT. WHEN THE ACCEPTING AUTHORITY OF RETURN THROUGH E-FI LING IS SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE SECOND RETURN E-FILED ON 24.09.2 009 AS VALID REVISED RETURN THEN WHY THE APPELLANT ITSELF IS TRY ING TO DISLODGE IT? THIS IS CERTAINLY WITH A MOTIVE TO GET OUT OF THE N OTICE PERIOD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSERTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT DOES NOT KNOW WHO TRANSMITTED THE DATA THROUGH E-FILING ON 24.09.2009 . FIRST OF ALL NO BODY ELSE CAN TRANSMIT THE VOLUMINOUS DATA WITHOUT THE DATA IN HIS POSSESSION AND SECONDLY THE BUILT IN SECURITY SYST EM WILL NOT ALLOW UNCONNECTED PERSON TO DO SO WHILE E-FILING. THE CAS E LAW CITED BY THE APPELLANT WILL NOT COME TO HIS RESCUE BECAUSE IT DO ES NOT MATCH WITH THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE CASE CRAWFORD BAYLEY & CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA VS. OTHERS 246 CTR (BOM.) 459, THE H ONBLE COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF RETURN E-FILED ON THE GROUND THAT THOUGH DEPTT. HAS NOT RECEIVED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SENT THROUGH PRESCRIBED MODE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITR-V IN A W EEK TIME BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE APP ELLANT COULD HAVE FILED ITR-V BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SYSTEM AS VALID REVISED RE TURN, NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WAS WITHIN TIME IN TERM OF PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2)(II) AS PER WHICH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS T O BE TAKEN FROM THE DATE OF REVISED RETURN. 4.3. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL ON MERIT OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AO DESPITE BEING ASKED SEVERAL TIME S. THIS LED TO THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144. THE APPELLANT HA ALSO NOT PLACED BEFORE ME ANY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AO TO JUSTIFY ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PLACED BEFORE ME DETAILS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THE ASSESSM ENT BY THE AO IS IN ORDER AND ALL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE CONFI RMED. 14. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD HAVE FILED COPY OF ITR-V EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, BUT IT CHOSE NOT TO DO SO, BECAUSE THIS WOULD HAVE DEFEATED ITS MOTI VE OF TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE NOTICE PERIOD; AND THAT THE REVISED RETURN STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE SYSTEM, AS A VALID REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE ASSESSEE S ABOVE CONTENTION. A PERUSAL OF THE AFOREQUOTED RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 8 THE INDEED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE, AS T O WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION IN FORM ITR-V, THE ALLE GED REVISED RETURN CAN BE TREATED AS A VALID REVISED RETURN. THIS, IN THE FACE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF RULE 12(3)(III) OF THE RULES, WHICH R ULE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE I.T.ACT. SECT ION 139(1) OF THE ACT (RELEVANT PORTION) LAYS DOWN AS UNDER: 139(1) EVERY PERSON .. .SHALL.FURNISH A RETUR N OF HIS INCOME IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER .. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) AND MAY IT BE NOTED HERE, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, DESPITE THE ASSESSEES SPECIFIC CONTENTION, NOT DEEMED IT FIT TO ADDRESS T HE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER COMPLIANCE OF RULE 12(3)(III) OF THE RULES IS MANDATORY, OR MERELY DIRECTORY, SANS COMPLIANCE OF WHICH, A REV ISED RETURN CAN BE TAKEN TO BE A VALID REVISED RETURN. 15. THIS ISSUE TAKES ON SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE THE VALIDITY OF THE SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR CASS SCRUTINY AND ALL PRO CEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE THERETO, INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WOULD DEPE ND ON THE VALID SERVICE OF THE INTIMATION FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY, WITHIN LIMITATION AS PER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE RE VISED RETURN, UPLOADED WITHOUT FURNISHING THE REQUISITE VERIFICATION IN F ORM ITR-V, IS TO BE TAKEN AS A VALID REVISED RETURN, MERELY BECAUSE T HE AST SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED IT AS SUCH, AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LEFT WITH NO MERIT ON THIS SCORE. ELSE, THE SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR CASS SCRUTINY WOULD ITSELF HAVE TO GO, ALONGWITH ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SUCH SELECTION. 16. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS ISSUE IS R EMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON AFFORDING DUE AND ITA NO.357(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 208-09 9 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, WILL CO-OPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) WILL DECIDE, IF NEED REMAINS, THE MERITS OF THE CASE, ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE, BY PROVIDING THE ASSESS EE WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT ITS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONS MAD E IN THE CASE. ALL PLEAS AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW SHALL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE. 17. FOR THE ABOVE, THE REMAINING GROUNDS A RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO AT THIS STAGE, AND WE ARE NOT DOING SO, E VEN AS THESE GROUNDS WERE ALSO NOT ARGUED BEFORE US, IN VIEW OF THE AFO RESAID LEGAL JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE GOING TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER, AS INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2. 18. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH D ECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 18/12/2015 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. GANESH METAL INDUSTRIES, JAMM U 2. THE ITO, WARD-1, JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.