2020 (10) TMI 260 - HC - Income Tax

Revised return filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation - matter not remanded to the AO to assess the original return of the assessee - disallowances deleted by ITAT - HELD THAT - ITAT was not justified in going into the issue of disallowances before the AO had an opportunity of assessing the original return and determined the amount which was liable to be brought to tax. This later exercise involved examination of factual matrix which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ITAT should not have undertaken as if it were the authority of the first instance. ITAT, in this case, after holding that the revised return was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should have restored the original return before the AO and, thereafter, directed the AO to assess the original return in accordance with law. This would have afforded both, the Revenue as well as the Assessee, effective opportunity to putforth their respective versions on the issue of disallowances which, normally arise in the course of such assessment proceedings. Impugned order made by the ITAT, to the extent it purports to delete various disallowances or to finalise the assessment, must be interfered with. This later portion of the impugned order is, therefore, set aside. - Decided in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the Assessee's contentions without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer by way of a remand?
2. Whether the revised return filed by the Assessee was beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
3. Whether the ITAT was justified in addressing the issue of disallowances and finalizing the assessment based on the revised return?

Analysis:
1. The Assessee filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08, initially declaring an income of ?1,38,14,410, which was later revised to ?5,33,14,420 after a survey conducted in the premises. The Assessee then claimed that the revised return was filed only to cooperate with the Revenue, and the correct offer of income was reflected in the original return itself. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim and concluded the assessment based on the revised return. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT)(Appeals) also dismissed the Assessee's appeal, leading to an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

2. The ITAT, in its order, held that the revised return was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that the disallowances made were not justified. The Revenue challenged this aspect of the ITAT's order, arguing that the ITAT should not have addressed the issue of disallowances without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the original return. The Assessee defended the ITAT's decision, stating that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by finalizing the assessment based on the revised return filed beyond the limitation period.

3. The High Court held that while the ITAT was correct in determining that the revised return was filed beyond the limitation period, it erred in addressing the issue of disallowances before allowing the AO to assess the original return. The Court set aside the portion of the ITAT's order related to the deletion of disallowances and directed the matter to be remanded to the AO for assessing the original return. The Court emphasized that both the Revenue and the Assessee should have the opportunity to present their versions on the disallowances during the assessment proceedings.

4. The Court clarified that the AO, in assessing the original return, should not be influenced by the ITAT's deletion of disallowances. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the Revenue, subject to the observations made. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was disposed of with no order as to costs.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's decision and reasoning in each aspect of the case.