SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - in the Assessment year 1990-91 an individual, medical practitioner, tiled return under Self Assessment Scheme declaring income of Rs. 55,000/-. The assessing officer found that unlike the past year income from agriculture had not been declared.
He afforded opportunity to the assessee to explain the same, in compliance the assessee filed a revised return of income wherein agricultural income had been shown/added. The to for reasons and factors entailed in the assessm ent order took the case out of the purview of Self Assessment Scheme and framed assessm ent at an income of Rs. 253,000/- where:- Private practice - grossreceipts. G.P. rate Expenses Income Plus agricultural income.
Rs. 4,02,000/- 66.67% Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 2,18,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
2. Appeal was preferred against the decision of the to where it was pleaded that the processing Of the return u/S. 62 was not justified, it qualified for acceptance under Self Assessment Scheme.
Alternately, it was submitted that the estimation of receipts at Rs. 4,02,000/- against Rs. 175,000/- was excessive. The first appellate authority vide its Order No. 125, dated 20.7.1992 was of view and opinion that the return fulfilled the condition of Circular No. 5 of 1990, dated 25.6.1990. There was no concealment of income (even if it was a case where Section 65 should have been invoked after accepting the declared version). He accordingly decided that the return qualified for acceptance under Self Assessm ent Scheme and should be accepted accordingly.
3. The Revenue now opposes the findings and conclusion drawn by the first appellate authority pleading that the case did not qualify for acceptance under Self Assessment Scheme, The learned A.R., however, supports the impugned decision.
4. Learned L.A. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue maintained that the reasons and basis on which the GIT (A) has based his orders did not correctly reflect the factual position nor appreciates the condition laid down in Circular No. 5 of 1990, dated 25.6.1990. it was argued that Para 3 (b) (ii) was not applicable in this case as this (para) only pertained to the add-back of legally admissible expenses while in the case under consideration the assessee had ignored a source of income, it was further argued that after the assessee had filed a revised return of income he fell out of the purview of the Self Assessm ent Scheme. Prayer was thus for restoring the original assessment order.
5. Learned A.R. in support of his arguments drew strength from the findings of the first appellate and repeated that the condition of Para 3 (b)(ii) was applicable as agricultural income stood covered under it. Prayer was thus for confirming the action of the CIT (A).
6. The facts of the case and line of arguments advanced before me and the record has been considered and examined. I am not in agreement either with the findings of the CIT (A) or conclusion drawn by him.
(i) The assessee voluntarily and willingly filed a revised return of income. This was under the provisions of Section 57.
(ii) Once revised return of total income furnished. Explanation to Section 59 (1) "for the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a return of total income furnished u/S. 55 does not include a return of total income furnished u/S. 57. When a revised return of income had been filed it for all intensail purposes was outside the ambit of Self Assessment Scheme".
(iii) Subsequent argument and reasoning of the first appellate authority regarding the various provisions of Circular No. 5 of 1990 become irrelevant.
(iv) Return, after having been revised u/S. 57, is to be processed under normal law. Provisions of Section 59 are not applicable.
(v) Various provisions of Self Assessment Scheme, as discussed and entailed in the impugned order, are only relevant once assessment is being framed under Self Assessment Scheme, in the instant case this is not the position.
(vi) The provision of law obviously and certainly supersedes clarifications and provisions of various Circulars. The same is the position in the instant appeal.
7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the return was outside the purview of Self Assessment Scheme and the CIT (A)'s direction to accept the same is not justified. I accordingly disagree with him. I also find that the other issues i.e.., estimate of professional receipts has not been disposed of on merit.
Under the circumstances I would deem it fair to remit the case back to the first appellate authority with the direction that the return did not fulfil the condition of Self Assessment Scheme, it was rightly processed under normal law. The issues of estimation of receipts should now be disposed of on merit keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Appeal stands disposed of to the extent and manners indicated above.