Cutler Hatrust v. Income Ta

CWP-28224-202[2 (O&M)] 107+226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H CM-5739-CWP-2024 in/andCWP-28224-2022 (O&M)Date of Decision: 29.08.2024 CUTLER HATRUST . . . . Petitioner Vs. INCOME TA . . . . Respondent ****CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: MwMMr. Agam Bansal, Advocate s. Suparna Jain Singh, AdvocaMMf Mofor the respondent. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-5739-CWP-2024 Application for placing on record to R3 and seeking exemption from filing certiRegistry to place the same at app Main case 1.The wrby the petitioner assailing thepenaltyed under Section 221(1) of the CWP-28224-202[2 (O&M)] Page 2 of 6 Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) imposing penalty onaccount of filing wrong return for the AY 2013-14. 2.Notice after reply has been filed by therespondwas issued by this Court whereent, and it is stated by the respondent as under: “2. That the contents of Paare wrong and denied. It is submittra No. 2 of the petition ed herein that return of in2013-14 was filed on 3processed u/s 143(1) of thdcome for the assessment year 0.03.2014. Further, the case was e Income Tax Act, 1961, on emand of Rs. 68,36,280/-. If we go17.03.2015, creating a into the background of thFe case then it is noticed that the orm 7 u/s 139(4A) due to which hithe same is filed in wrong ITR forPetitioner has filed ITR s return got defective as m and section which is nrot applicable in the case of the egarding the defective ITR is sentassesee. The intimation by CPC- Bangalore to thTe assessee as seen from the CPC ax Department. The screenshot of2.0 portal of the Income the CPC 2.0 is attached Ac nnexure R-1. Since the Petitioner entralised processing centre (herthe same return has been transferrassessing officer i.e. office of the udoes not respond to the einafter refer as CPC) ed to the Jurisdictional ndersigned respondent. TAhe ITR has been processed by ssessing officer but as the same isform and section the system dothe then Jurisdictional filed under wrong ITR es not taken up the eTxemption of the Petitioner and herefore, the claim of the exempsystem due to filing wrong ITR foalso. The Processing sheet/intimatia demand is created. tion is rejected by the rm and Wrong section on as available with the respondent is attached as annexure The above mistake has aPetitioner in the Assessment Yeaagain filed the ITR Form 7 under ssame got declared invalid by th Page 3 of 6 Petitioner receive mail from CPreturn, he revised the same and filthe same got processed. The scremodule of the Income Tax Departabove stated fact is attached as annis clear that there is mistake from thC regarding defective ed ITR Form No. 5 and enshot of the CPC 2.0 ment substantiating the exure R-3. Therefore, it e petitioner side for the Aqssessment Year 2013-14 due to uestion was raised. The petitioner further stated1 43(3) and section 156. Both of thiscase of the assesee as per proceIncome Tax Act, 1961.” 3.The respondent has further objected that the petitioner hascircumvhim as enshrined under Section154 ofented the remedy available to the Act, and also has not availed the remedy of appeal asprovided under Section 249 of the Act. 4.Faced with the said objections, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the respondent has not given him fair opportunity. Thedemandpenalty ought to be withdrawnwith a f of Rs.68,36,280/- by way of resh notice to be given to the petitioner under Section 143(1) ofthe Acbe able to correct his returnaccordi 5.We havSection 154 of the Act providesas under: “154. Rectification of mistak - [(1) With a view to rectifyinfrom the record an income-tax asection 116 may,- Page 4 of 6 (a) amend any order paprovisions of this Act;] (b) [ amend any intimationunder sub-section (1) of section 1427 of 1999, Section 65, for Clause (s(d) [ amend any intimation ection 206CB.] [Inserted by Finan2015), dated 14.5.2015.] 4.Faced with the said objections, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the respondent has not given him fair opportunity. Thedemandpenalty ought to be withdrawnwith a f of Rs.68,36,280/- by way of resh notice to be given to the petitioner under Section 143(1) ofthe Acbe able to correct his returnaccordi 5.We havSection 154 of the Act providesas under: “154. Rectification of mistak - [(1) With a view to rectifyinfrom the record an income-tax asection 116 may,- Page 4 of 6 (a) amend any order paprovisions of this Act;] (b) [ amend any intimationunder sub-section (1) of section 1427 of 1999, Section 65, for Clause (s(d) [ amend any intimation ection 206CB.] [Inserted by Finan2015), dated 14.5.2015.] [(1-A) Where any matter hadecided in any proceeding by wayrin sub-section (1), the amay, notwithstanding aaelating to an order referred to uthority passing such order nything contained in any law for mend the order under that sub-sematter other than the matter whichand decided.] [ Inserted by Act 31 o6.10.1964).] (2) Subject to the other prothe authority concerned- (a) may make an amendmenof its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendsuch mistake which has been brouassessee, and where the authority c[ Certain words omitted by Act 2(w.e.f. 1.10.1998).] [Commissionerb[y Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1 [* * *] [ Proviso omitted by38 (w.e.f. 1.6.1994).] (3) An amendment, whicenhancing an assessment or reducinincreasing the liability of the assesunder this section unless the author Page 5 of 6 notice to the assessee of its intenallowed the assessee a reasonablheard. (4) Where an amendment is maan order shall be passed in wriuthority concerned. (5) Subject to the provisionany such amendment has the eassessment, the [Assessing Officer]o1f 1988, Section 2, for " Inco.4.1988).] shall make any refundsuch assessee. (6) Where any such amendenhancing the assessment or redumade, the [Assessing Officer] [S1988, Section 2, for " Incom1.4.1988).] shall serve on the assesin the prescribed form specifyingsuch notice of demand shall be deesection 156 and the provisions oaccordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provsub-section (4) of section 186, nosection shall be made after the expthe end of the financial year in whbe amended was passed] [ SubstituSection 29, for " from the date ofa mended" (w.e.f. 1.10.1984).]. s(8) [ Without prejudice to ection (7), where an application fosection is made by the assessee onJune, 2001 to an income-tax authosection (1), the authority shall pperiod of six months from the end ofthe provisions of sub-r amendment under this or after the 1st day of rity referred to in sub-ass an order, within a the month in which the application is received by it,- Page 6 of 6 (a) making the amendment; (b) refusing to allow the claior m.]” 6.Keepinabove, it is apparent that thepetitiong in view the provisions as er was having full knowledge of having filed return in thewrong filed return for the AY 2014-15in the Iformat. More so, as he had also TR Form 7, which was later on revised by him and ITR wasfiled under Form No.5 subsequently. Once he has himself corrected hisITR fothere was no occasion for thepetitionr the subsequent AY 2014-15, er not to correct his ITR for AYpetitiong in view the provisions as er was having full knowledge of having filed return in thewrong filed return for the AY 2014-15in the Iformat. More so, as he had also TR Form 7, which was later on revised by him and ITR wasfiled under Form No.5 subsequently. Once he has himself corrected hisITR fothere was no occasion for thepetitionr the subsequent AY 2014-15, er not to correct his ITR for AY 7.Be that as it may, the petitioner has remfthe Act as above for seeking necessary rectifications. If such anapplica the respondent shall decide thesame ontion is moved by the petitioner, the basis as above, and allow the petitioner, if required, to filereturn.the Act as above for seeking necessary rectifications. If such anapplica the respondent shall decide thesame ontion is moved by the petitioner, the basis as above, and allow the petitioner, if required, to filereturn. 8.No furtthis Court at this stage. Petitionis accorher adjudication is required by dingly dismissed in aforesaid teis accorher adjudication is required by dingly dismissed in aforesaid te 9.All pending applications also stand disp (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 29, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No