M/S. SHUBHARAM COMPLEX vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BENGALURU, 6TH FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU, 6TH FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -1, BENGALURU 5TH FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. ... RESPONDENTS

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the returns filed by the petitioner was declared as invalid in terms of Section-139(9) of the I.T. Act 1961; the petitioner was advised to file corrected return of income by 31.03.2013. The petitioner explained that there is no mistake and the return filed shows correct shares aggregating 100%.

It is contended that on the letter of the second respondent, advising the petitioner to file a fresh return of income and approach the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing the return of income under Section-119(2)(b) of the Act, the same was acted upon. Surprisingly, the third respondent–Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax rejected the petitioner’s

Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would clearly submit that the return filed depicted correct shares aggregating 100%. However, the third respondent rejected the application filed under Section–119(2)(b) of the Act for the reason that the assessee’s case does not fall under the condition prescribed under the Circular-9 of 2015, as the return of income was filed well in time. Hence, if a direction is issued by this Court to respondent No.1 to scrutinize the returns filed by the petitioner, the same shall be complied with, subject to the petitioner undertaking before this Court that no objection will be raised relating to the limitation for issuance of notice under Section-143(2) of the Act and for framing the

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the returns filed by the assessee was wrongly declared by the Income tax Department as invalid return under Section-139(9) of the Act. It is on the advise of the department an application under Section-119(2)(b) was filed to condone the delay in filing the returns. The said application has been rejected by the third respondent without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court. It was obligatory on the part of the Department to scrutinize whether the returns filed by the petitioner was well

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes before this Court that in the event the assessment proceedings has to be completed by issuing notices under the Act, the assessee shall not raise any objection on the aspect of limitation. The said undertaking is placed on record.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, by quashing the Annexures- D, G and J. Respondent No.2 shall scrutinize the returns filed by the petitioner relating to the assessment year 2011-2012 within a period of eight weeks from the