VALLABH GLASS WORKS LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a public limited company. It submitted a return of income on 24th Aug., 1978. The ITO in terms of S. 144B of the IT Act, 1961, forwarded a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee on 30th March, 1981. The assessee filed its objections on 1st Apri l0, 1981. In view of the objections filed by the assessee, the ITO forwarded the draft order together with the objections to the IAC. Hearing was fixed before the IAC on 17th June, 1981. Before that the petitioner had submitted a revised return of income to the ITO on 15th June, 1981. So on the 17th, it pointed out to the IAC that it had filed a revised return. The IAC ignoring the revised return filed by the petitioner, passed a final assessment order on 23rd June, 1981. As the petitioner's revised return has not been taken into consideration, it has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the IAC and the demand notice issued pursuant thereto.

(2.) WHAT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an assessee has a right to submit a revised return, if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in his earlier return. He further submitted that if such a return is filed before the assessment is made, then the same is required to be considered. As the IAC ignored the same totally even though the fact of filing of the revised return was brought to his notice, the order passed by him must be regarded as illegal and bad. Obviously, when the Act permits the filing of a revised return, it is expected to be considered by the assessing authority, if the same is filed before the order is made by it ; otherwise, the very purpose of giving such a right would be frustrated. Learned counsel for the respondents did not deny the fact that the revised return was filed before the assessment order was passed by the IAC. It is also not denied that this fact was brought to the notice of the IAC on 17th June, 1981, at the time when the petitioner was called for hearing. In view of this undisputed fact, it will have to be held that the IAC committed an error in not taking into consideration the revised return filed by the petitioner. The order passed by him, therefore, will have to be quashed and set aside.