9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised return filed by the assessee. 2. Whether the assessee can change its status from HUF to individual in the revised return. 3. Applicability of Section 139(5) for filing the revised return. 4. Scope of the ITO's authority in reassessment proceedings following a remand by the CIT under Section 263. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Revised Return Filed by the Assessee: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the assessee can file a revised return claiming the status of an individual when the original assessment was completed in the status of HUF. The original return was filed on 16-4-1983, beyond the prescribed time under Section 139(1) or (2), and without any extension. The original assessment was completed on 18-3-1985, granting exemption under Section 54(1). The CIT later found this exemption erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, as Section 54(1) applies only to individuals. Consequently, the CIT directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment, denying the exemption under Section 54(1). 2. Whether the Assessee Can Change Its Status from HUF to Individual in the Revised Return: During the fresh assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return on 22-4-1987, claiming the status of an individual. The ITO refused to consider this revised return, maintaining the status as HUF in the fresh assessment. The assessee contended that it is entitled to file as many returns as possible before the completion of the assessment and that the revised return should have been considered. However, the Tribunal held that the ITO is not obliged to entertain the revised return or the change of status from HUF to individual, as the original return was filed voluntarily under Section 139(4) and not under Section 139(1) or (2). 3. Applicability of Section 139(5) for Filing the Revised Return: The assessee argued that the revised return should be considered under the provisions of unamended Section 139(5), which allowed filing a revised return before the assessment is made. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's contention that Section 139(5) applies only to returns filed under Section 139(1) or (2), not under Section 139(4). The original return filed on 16-4-1983 was under Section 139(4), and thus, the privilege to file a revised return under Section 139(5) does not extend to it. The Tribunal cited several judicial decisions supporting this view, including O.P. Malhotra v. CIT, Metal India Products v. CIT, and Eapen Joseph v. CIT. 4. Scope of the ITO's Authority in Reassessment Proceedings Following a Remand by the CIT under Section 263: The Tribunal held that the ITO's scope in reassessment proceedings is confined to the specific directions given in the CIT's revisionary order. The CIT had directed the ITO to deny the exemption under Section 54(1), and the ITO was not authorized to entertain any fresh claims or changes in status made by the assessee in the revised return. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including Kartar Singh v. CIT and S.P. Kochhar v. ITO, which state that the ITO's power in reassessment is limited to the subject matter of the remand order. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that: 1. The revised return filed by the assessee is not valid under Section 139(5) as the original return was filed under Section 139(4). 2. The assessee cannot change its status from HUF to individual in the revised return. 3. The ITO's authority in reassessment is confined to the specific directions given in the CIT's revisionary order, and he cannot entertain fresh claims or changes in status. 4. The appeal of the assessee lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.
|
