Wp/23771/2005 Of Sri Kamlesh Parsram Rupani v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Between And THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23771 OF 2005 DATED: 08-11-2005 Sri Kamlesh Parsram Rupani. …………… PETITIONER The Commissioner of Income Tax, AP – IV Circle,Hyderabad and another. ……………… RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23771 OF 2005 ORDER:(per Sri B. Sudershan Reddy, J) The writ petition, in our considered opinion, is absolutely frivolous andmisconceived. As is evident from the proceedings dated 22-04-1996, the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad, the 2[nd] respondent hereinduly informed the petitioner that the return of income filed for the assessment year1993-94 on 20-02-1996 is beyond the time allowed under Section 139(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the same is liable to the lodged. The returnsubmitted by the petitioner was accordingly lodged. The proceeding attained finalitysince it remained unimpeached. The petitioner’s representation dated 16-02-2005 made after a period of nine yearsand even the earlier representation requiring the Department to consider his case forrefund of the amount is of no consequence since there is no provision under whichsuch an application could have been filed in respect of an assessment which hasnot been completed and which was lodged. The petitioner, if at all, could have questioned the proceedings dated 22-04-1996 whereunder the return of income forthe assessment year 1993-94 has been lodged by the Department since it wasbeyond the period prescribed under Section 139(1) of the said Act. The petitionerdid not challenge the same and cannot be permitted to challenge the same in anindirect manner after a period of more than nine years. The Writ Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. (B. Sudershan Reddy, J) 08..11..2005 (S. Ananda Reddy, J) ks