2023 (9) TMI 331 - HC - Income Tax

Invalid return - petitioner had applied for change of name - although the PAN remained the same, the change in name was recognized by the concerned authority and despite this position a notice was issued u/s 139(9) labelling the petitioner s return as defective - as submitted petitioner could have approached the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), for an extension of time to file a revised return, by taking recourse to Section 119(2)(b) - HELD THAT - We are of the view that this course of action does not align with the provisions of the Act. The fact that there has been a change in the name of the petitioner is not in dispute; in fact, on the date when the return was filed, i.e., 15.10.2018, the petitioner was described as RWML. Accordingly, the impugned order and communications are set aside. The respondents/revenue are directed to process the return filed on 15.10.2018 concerning the aforementioned AY, and pass necessary consequential orders.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the treatment of a return as invalid, communication regarding the change of name in the return, and the insistence on filing a revised return by the revenue authorities.

Treatment of Return as Invalid:
The petitioner challenged the order treating their return for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 as invalid. The petitioner filed the return on 15.10.2018 as Religare Wealth Management Ltd. Later, the name was changed to Religare Advisors Ltd. Despite the approved name change by the Registrar of Companies and recognition by the concerned authority, the return was labeled defective. The petitioner argued that the return was proper and should not have been categorized as defective under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents' insistence on filing a revised return was deemed uncalled for and contrary to the Act.

Communication Regarding Name Change:
The petitioner's reply to the notice under Section 139(9) explaining the name change from RWML to RAL was not accepted by the revenue authorities. Subsequent communications from different authorities reiterated the need for the correct name in the return as per the PAN database. However, the petitioner's position was that the return filed on 15.10.2018 was proper and did not require revision. The respondents' demand for a revised return was considered unjustified by the petitioner.

Insistence on Revised Return:
The revenue authorities suggested that the petitioner could have sought an extension to file a revised return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. However, the court found that this course of action did not align with the provisions of the Act. The judgment highlighted that the name change was acknowledged, and the impugned order and communications were set aside. The respondents were directed to process the return filed on 15.10.2018 for AY 2018-19 and take necessary actions accordingly. The writ petition was disposed of with parties instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.