MADHU NADUVATH MANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the revised return ought to have been entertained. While acknowledging that the Commissioner was correct in pointing out that there was no scope for revision under Section 264 due to the delay, the Court emphasized the importance of the depreciation claim made by the petitioner. The Court directed that the revised return shall be accepted and an appropriate order passed, taking into account the depreciation claim, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This decision is based on the principle that procedural defects should not defeat a legitimate claim, especially when the claim is evident and the defect is minor. The Court also directed that any demand based on the original return shall not be enforced until the revised order is passed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Madhu Naduvath Mana, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed an e-return for assessment year 2010-11, claiming depreciation of Rs. 1,11,338/-. However, this claim was not mentioned in the schedule. A revised return was filed within time on March 31, 2011, but it was rejected. Subsequently, a rectification petition was filed on March 30, 2012, which was also rejected on April 12, 2012. The petitioner then filed a revision under Section 264 of the IT Act, which was rejected due to a significant delay. The delay was attributed to the petitioner not being aware of the rectification order, which was uploaded online but not physically communicated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revised return ought to have been entertained by the revenue, considering the claim for depreciation was reflected in the original return and the only defect was the non-inclusion in the schedule. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the revised return should have been accepted as the claim for depreciation was evident in the original return, with the only issue being a procedural defect in not including it in the schedule. The petitioner also contended that the rejection of the rectification order and subsequent revision was due to non-communication of the order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner, rejected the revision petition stating there was no scope for entertaining it under Section 264 of the IT Act due to the delay. The judgment notes that the Commissioner rightly pointed out there was no scope for revision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner is a practicing lawyer and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner filed e-returns of 2010. In the return filed, the petitioner claimed a depreciation of Rs.1,11,338/-. However, in the schedule, it was not mentioned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revised return within time ie; on 31.03.2011, that was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner, filed rectification on 30.03.2012 and the rectification was rejected on 12.04.2012. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision. There was a long delay in filing the revision. It was for the reason that the petitioner was not aware of the orders passed on rectification. The order of rectification, in fact, was uploaded in the WP(C).No. 8561 of 2019 3 website, but the hard copy was not communicated to the petitioner. The revision was also rejected, stating that there is no scope for entertaining the revision under Section 264 of the IT Act. The petitioner's claim for depreciation is reflected in the return. The only defect that was existed is with regard to the non-inclusion in the schedule.
In such circumstance, I am of the view that revised return ought to have been entertained. There is no scope for, in fact, filing a revision as rightly pointed out by the Commissioner. Nevertheless, what assumes importance is that in the factor of claim made by the petitioner in regard to depreciation. Therefore, I am of the view that revised return shall be accepted and appropriate order shall be passed, taking note of the claim for depreciation made by WP(C).No. 8561 of 2019 4 the petitioner,
after
affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the revised order is passed, any demand based on the return shall not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE SB/21/03/2019 JUDGE
WP(C).No. 8561 of 2019 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 264
- Murugaiah Althuri, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2100/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Babu Gundlapalle, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2093/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 787/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 786/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Office…ITA 785/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
