Sankar Silks, Arni V. ITO, Vellore

MA 201/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2286 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO S . 19 6, 197 & 198 /MDS/2013 (IN ITA NOS.158, 159 & 160/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04, 200 4 - 05 & 200 5 - 0 6 M/S.SANKAR SAREES, NO.51, PALANI ANDAVAR KOIL STREET, ARNI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(3), VELLORE [PAN: AA AFS 8132 M ] M.P. NOS. 199, 200, 201 & 202/MDS/2013 (IN ITA NOS.161, 162, 163 & 164/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005 -06 M/S.SANKAR SILKS, NO.51, PALANI ANDAVAR KOIL STREET, ARNI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(3), VELLORE [PAN: AAAFS 8134 M] (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : MR. D.ANAND, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR. HARI RAO, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-08-2014 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNA L DT.08-07-2011. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES/PETITIONERS SUBMIT TED THAT THE M.P. NOS. 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 & 202/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST BOTH THE ASSESSEE S WERE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE SINGLE ORDER DT.08-07- 2011. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN PARA NO.10.3 AT PAGE NO.11 AND IN PARA 15 AT PAGE NO.17 HAS RECORDE D WRONG FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS PROVIDED U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND CO NSEQUENTLY, SUBSEQUENT RETURNS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REVISED RETURNS U/S.139(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PRAYS FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED APPARENT MISTAKE IN OR DER SO AS TO BRING CORRECT FACTS ON THE RECORD. 2. SHRI HARI RAO, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMI TTED THAT AS PER THE FACTS STATED IN PENALTY ORDERS IN THE CA SE OF BOTH ASSESSEES, FOR THE IMPUGNED AYS THE ORIGINAL RETURN S WERE FILED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER M.P. NOS. 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 & 202/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: DT.08-07-2011 HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURNS IN PARA 10.3 AT PAGE NO. 10 & 11. 10.3 SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A SUBSEQUENT RE TURNS STATED TO BE REVISED RETURNS DECLARING ADDITIONAL I NCOME, WHICH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5), CANNOT BE TERMED OR TREATED AS REVISED RETURN BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RETU RNS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS P ROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(1) AND BEYOND TIME. SO, SUCH REV ISED RETURNS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT ALL. IN PARA 15 AT PAGE NO.17 THE BENCH FURTHER OBSERVED THAT: NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A SUBSEQUENT RETU RN STATED TO BE REVISED RETURN DECLARING PART OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WHICH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5), CANN OT BE TERMED OR TREATED AS REVISED RETURN BECAUSE THE ORI GINAL RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TI ME AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(1). BOTH THE SIDES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS HAVE B EEN WRONGLY RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORIGINA L RETURNS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE FILED WITHIN THE ST IPULATED TIME. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDERS. A PE RUSAL OF PENALTY ORDERS SHOW THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS WERE FILED WI THIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF T HE ACT. THE DETAILS OF DATE OF FILING RETURN AS PER PENALTY ORD ER AND THE DUE M.P. NOS. 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 & 202/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: DATES FOR FILING RETURNS IN THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE TABULATED HEREUNDER: IN CASE OF SANKAR SAREES: ASST. YEAR RETURNS FILED ON DUE DATE 2003 - 04 14 - 11 - 2003 30 - 11 - 2003 2004-05 09-09-2004 01-11-2004 2005-06 20-10-2005 31-10-2005 IN CASE OF SANKAR SILKS: ASST. YEAR RETURNS FILED ON DUE DATE 2002-03 28-10-2002 31-10-2002 2003-04 14-11-2003 30-11-2003 2004-05 09-09-2004 01-11-2004 2005-06 20-10-2005 31-10-2005 THUS, THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE OF FACT IN THE ORDE R WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. TO RECTIFY THIS MISTAKE, THE ABOVE L INES IN PARA 10.3 ARE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING LINES: 10.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUBSEQUENT RETURNS STA TED TO BE REVISED RETURNS DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5). SIMILARLY, THE LINES REPRODUCED FROM PARA 15 OF THE ORDER HEREIN ABOVE ARE SUBSTITUTED WITH FOLLOWING LINES: M.P. NOS. 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 & 202/MDS/2013 :- 5 -: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUBSEQUENT RETURN STATED TO BE REVISED RETURN DECLARING PART OF UN-ACCOUNTED INCOME. THE CORRECTIONS IN THE ORDER ARE NECESSITATED TO PU T THE RECORDS STRAIGHT AND TO BRING THE FACTS IN LINE WITH THE RE CORDS. HOWEVER, WITH THESE CORRECTIONS OF THE FACTUAL MISTAKE IN TH E ORDER, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE APPEALS. THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE RESULT OF T HE APPEALS WITH THE CORRECTION IN THE ORDER WILL REMAIN THE SA ME. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G. F.