Wa/1360/2016 Of M/S.s.t.n.&Sons v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS M/s.S.T.N.&Sons,rep. by its Managing PartnerT.Sebastian, 308, Main Road, Vallioor. Appellant in WA 1360/2016 M/s.Vincent Devaraj & Bros.,rep. by its Partner Mr.V.Edwin Bright, No.308 J Main Road, Vallioor. Appellant in WA 1539/2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,2 V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Madurai 625 002. Respondent in both appeals Prayer: Writ Appeals filed filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order dated 13.4.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.8020of 2004 and 17437 of 2003 on the file of this court. Prayer in WP.8020/04: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of the respondent in C.No.407/11/2002-03 dated13.02.2004 and quash the impugned order and consequently directthe respondent to grant relief to the petitioner for theassessment year 2000-01. Prayer in WP.17437/2003: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution ofIndia to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of the respondent in C.NO.414/9/2002-03 dated 28.05.2003and quash the impugned order and consequently direct therespondent to grant relief to the petitioner for the assessmentyear 2000-01. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellants : Mr.D.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.,)The present writ appeals challenge the orders of the learnedSingle Judge dated 13.4.2016 in W.P.Nos.8020 of 2004 and 17437of 2003. 2. Pursuant to a survey conducted by the Department on27.12.2000, Returns of income, and in one case, a revisedreturn, were filed by both appellants. The Returns wereprocessed and demands raised by the Department, challengingwhich, the appellants filed Petitions for Revision under Section264 of the Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act') that wererejected. Challenging the same, writ petitions were filedbefore this court, which were dismissed upholding the orderspassed in revision, assailed in appeal before us. 3. The statutory remedy for revising a Return of Income isprovided in terms of Section 139(5) of the Act. This has notbeen availed of in the present case. Revision of the Return ofIncome under Section 264 has been sought on the ground thatincome of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- offered voluntarily to taxat the time of survey under section 133A of the Act, is liableto be ignored in the computation of tax. Though the provisionsof Section 264 are wide and can be invoked to revise any orderpassed by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner, itcannot extend to rectification of a return of incomecorroborated by a statement recorded voluntarily from theassessee offering income to tax. 4. In this view of the matter, the writ appeals fail and aredismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances ofthe case, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach theappropriate Departmental authorities seeking a suitable schemeof instalment for payment of the tax and interest which shall beconsidered in accordance with law. No costs. The connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To: The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,2 V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Madurai 625 002. +2cc to Mr.D.Vijayakumar,Advocate sr.2326 +1cc to Mr.M.Swminathan,Advocate sr.2376 W.A.Nos.1360 & 1539 of 2016ak(co)ss(5/5/2017)