High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
CIT vs. Bhupendra Singh Rajpal (HUF)
Section 139
Asst. Year 1997-98
Deepak Verma & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 117 of 2004
2nd August, 2005
Counsel Appeared
R.L. Jain with Ku. V. Mandlik, for the Appellants
JUDGMENT
By the court :
These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) against the composite order passed by Tribunal, Indore, on 12th July, 2004. IT Appeal No. 116 of 2004 was for the asst. yr. 1997-98, whereas IT Appeal No. 117 of 2004 is also for the same asst. yr. 1997-98. The appeals before the Tribunal were also preferred by the Revenue only against the order passed by the CIT(A). Since common questions were formulated the appeals were taken up for hearing together by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessees have also filed cross-objections, but during the course of hearing the said cross-objections were not pressed; hence they were dismissed.Before the CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal, the Revenue assailed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,00,000 in ITA 404/Ind/2000 with regard to M/s Manjeet Fibres and Rs. 3,50,000 in ITA No. 382/Ind/2000 in the matter of Bhupendra Singh Rajpal (HUF), on account of estimated income of the AO. That the entire incomes of the assessees were duly audited for the year 1997-98 and were disclosed under VDI Scheme; return of the income was not filed as required under s. 139 (1) of the Act. The assessees decided to disclose the entire current income based on audit report under the VDI Scheme. Though nil income was shown in the return of the income filed by both the assessees on 19th Jan., 1998, the AO estimated by income for the asst. yr. 1997-98 at Rs. 4,00,000 in the matter of M/s Manjeet Fibres, on which the assessee also paid advance tax of Rs. 81,000. Similarly, in the matter of Bhupendra Singh Rajpal, the AO estimated the income for the asst. yr. 1997-98 at Rs. 3,50,000 on which the advance tax was paid by this assessee too.
Against these orders of the AO, the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted the returns of the assessees under the VDI Scheme but directed that the advance tax already paid shall not be refunded to the assessees. Against this order of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal. In the said appeals assessees also preferred cross-objections by which the prayer for refund of advance tax was refused by the CIT(A), but during the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the said cross-objections were not pressed. Now, the only question is whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the returns of the assessees, which were filed beyond the period of the VDI Scheme. CIT(A) has assigned reasons for accepting the returns of the assessee on 19th Jan., 1998, whereas the scheme had come to an end on 30th Oct., 1997. It is also not in dispute that the said period was extended by the circular issued by the CBDT upto 31st March, 1998. Thus, computing the date of filing of the returns by the assessees, the same were obviously filed much the extended period. Thus, the CIT(A) committed no error in accepting the returns but refusing to grant any relief to the assessees with regard to refunds claim by the assessees.
Against such an order passed by the Tribunal, which is now based on findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Thus, this and the connected appeal are dismissed, at this stage itself.
[Citation : 290 ITR 194]
