Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 26.06.2025 vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 June, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:543-DB
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
ITA No. 1 of 2025
Date of Decision: 26.06.2025
Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
and having its office at Lumshnong,
East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya represented by its
authorized Attorney. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle Shillong, Aaykar Bhawan,
M.G. Road, Shillong
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), through
Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Coimbatore ... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Pandey, Adv. with
Mr. S.C. Keyal, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Page 1 of 5
2025:MLHC:543-DB
Per. H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The brief facts are that the appellant company filed its
Income Tax Return on 14.02.2022 for the Accounting year 2020-21
indicating income of Rs. 1,68,20,990/- with a total Income Tax liability
of Rs. 43,78,669/- . During the relevant Financial Year, the appellant
company had earned a profit of Rs. 6,38,81,925/- from the sale of its
investments, which the appellant company had duly disclosed in the
Income Tax Return. The appellant duly reported the said Profit on Sale
of investment being assessable to tax under the head of income ‘Capital
Gains’. The appellant company however by mistake omitted to
exclude/reduce the Profit of Rs. 6,38,81,925/- on Sale of Investment
by way of deduction and Sl. No. 3(b)- ‘Income/Receipts credited to
profit and loss account considered under other heads of income
chargeable u/s 115BBF/chargeable u/s 115BBG’ of Schedule BP in the
ITR.
2. On the mistake being discovered by the appellant
company, an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 was filed before the Assistant Commissioner for rectification of
Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:543-DB
the mistake. As no order was forthcoming, an appeal was preferred
under Section 246A of the Act, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals)
vide order dated 11.01.2024 dismissed the appeal by holding that a
mistake has to be corrected by filing revised return or under Section
264 of the Income Tax Act, as it was not an error apparent on record
to be rectified under Section 154, or to be considered in appeal. On a
further appeal, which was preferred under Section 253 of the Act
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, the
Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.2024, while partly allowing the appeal
on other payments, however upheld the observation of the
Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the mistake having to be
corrected by filing of a revised return or under Section 264. It was
further directed that the CPC AO/CIT(A), consider the revised returns
if filed.
3. However, as the time limit for filing the revised returns
for the accounting year 2020-21 had since expired, the appellant
therefore was unable to do so, inasmuch as, the same had to be done
digitally.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant in the
backdrop of the above noted facts, had limited his prayer for directions
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:543-DB
to allow the appellant to file physical returns, which was resisted by
Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the Income Tax authorities, who
submitted that the filing of physical returns is not permissible, as the
same cannot be reconciled with the Centralised Processing Centre.
5. This Court thereafter, had directed Mr. S. Pandey, learned
counsel to obtain specific instructions, as to whether this situation had
occurred before, inasmuch as, the opportunity granted by the
Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the
appellant would be rendered useless if physical filing was not
permitted.
6. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. S. Pandey,
learned counsel has on instructions, submitted that the appellant will
be permitted to file its physical returns for consideration before the
Central Processing Centre AO. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the
appellant has also placed a decision of the Delhi High Court, in the
case of Cosmo Films Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi & Anr. (W.P(C)
3598/2019 & CM Appl. No. 16512/2019), where in similar
circumstances the petitioner therein was allowed to file the returns
manually.
Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:543-DB
7. As the concession has been made by the respondents,
nothing remains for further consideration in the present appeal, and the
same is disposed of by directing the CPC AO to accept the revised
returns filed by the appellant manually/physically, for due
consideration in accordance with law.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (H.S. Thangkhiew)
Judge Judge
Meghalaya
26.06.2025
"V. Lyndem PS"
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.06.26 05:14:26 IST