Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd, ... vs Cit 6, Mumbai on 16 June, 2017Matching Fragments
8. The aforesaid judgment was was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17854 of 2007 (Baljit Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II and another) decided on 3.12.2007 (Annexure P-21).
9. Once that is so, there was no regular assessment framed in the present case. Therefore, the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 could file the TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
revised return after complying with the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act up to 31.3.2007. The revised return filed on 26.09.2006 was thus validly filed within limitation. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner- assessee for the refund of the additional tax deposited amounting to Rs. 3,61,188/- is valid and justified.
11. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct that the refund be released to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of making the payment to him."
Similar issue has arisen before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT 276 ITR 165 in which also the Hon'ble High Court took the view that the intimation issued under section 143(1) cannot be treated as order of assessment and on the basis of such order the assessee denied his statutory rights to file a revised return within the period of limitation. No contrary decision was brought to our notice. In view of the aforesaid decisions of both the High Courts, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to accept the revised return filed by the assessee as a valid return and complete the assessment after considering the revised return be a valid return. Thus ground No. 3 taken by the assessee is allowed.
15. Ground Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are consequential to ground No. 4. Since we have allowed ground No. 4, therefore ground No. 5, 6 and 7, as contended by the learned A.R., would become infructuous and dismissed as such.
16. Now coming to ground Nos. 1 and 2, since we have on merit decided the issue in favour of the assessee that the revised return filed by the assessee is a valid return while disposing ground No. 3, ground Nos. 1 and 2 became infructuous and stand dismissed as such.
17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.