9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be entitled to file the revised return and in wake of the decision of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax Others Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel [ 2017 (7) TMI 744 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the original return under Section 139(1) will pale into insignificance and would not survive. The respondent authority therefore ought to have considered the filing of revised return and as that has not been done, it is a clear breach of statutory provision, indulgence at the end of the Court is a must. Matter has travelled to this Court only because the revised return was not permitted beyond the prescribed time limit as set under Section 139 (5) of the Act. The Apex Court in case of DALMIA POWER LIMITED [ 2019 (12) TMI 991 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endra M. Sareen For the Petitioner(s) : Mr B S Soparkar For the Respondent(s) : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt ORAL ORDER PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI 1. Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent No.2 of not accepting the revised return of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 in violation of Section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act hereinafter). 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follow: 2.1 The Deep Industries Limited was having business of Oil and Gas exploration and production and oil and Gas Services. It decided to demerge its Oil and Gas services business therefore a scheme of arrangement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the protective basis adding ₹ 102,08,97,103/-. 2.6 This is a major grievance on the part of the petitioner. According to whom, by the time, NCLT passed the order, the time limit to file the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act had expired and it was not possible for the petitioner to file the revised return online and though it had attempted to so do it, it was not permitted and this approach on the part of the respondent is sought to be challenged. 2.7 The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of DALMIA POWER LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, reported in (2020) 420 ITR 339 (SC) with the following prayers: 7 Hon ble Court be pleased to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en issued during the scrutiny assessment proceedings and reply to which has also been duly considered. 5. According to the respondent, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessee Company-M/s.Deep Energy Resource Limited informed with the evidence that the Assessee Company has undergone the demerger following the order of the NCLT, Ahmedabad on 17.03.2020. It was effective from retrospective date of 01.04.2017. The respondent has also given the vital points of order of the NCLT, Ahmedabad in its reply; however, it has also further stated that the revised return since was filed manually and belatedly, it was constrained to consider it invalid as there is no provision under the Act to accept the revised return beyond limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame. She has urged that there can be no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the decision of the Apex Court and this Court. 9. Having heard the learned advocates on both the sides and having considered the chronology of events, it is quite clear that the petitioner-the then Deep CH4 Limited had filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 25.09.2018 and the scheme of arrangement of the de-merger of the company was sanctioned by the NCLT, Ahmedabad for 01.04.2017 being the appointed date; however, the order had come on 17.03.2020. The time of revised return which was to be filed electronically had already lapsed by then. The petitioner had raised the grievance with the Income Tax Portal via e-Nivaran facility on 26.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration. 11. As a parting note, the Court needs to make a mention that the matter has travelled to this Court only because the revised return was not permitted beyond the prescribed time limit as set under Section 139 (5) of the Act. The Apex Court in case of DALMIA POWER LIMITED (supra) when has categorically held and observed that Section 119 of the IT Act in such matters also would not be applicable and therefore, the least respondent authority could have done was to permit revised return. When the respondents have geared up to operate in the regime of electronic and faceless mode for conducting all its operations including the filing of returns document, hearing and assessment, it shall need to improvise the software and clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
