MULTAN: A tax appellate forum has declared that failure on the part of an assesses to submit documents within prescribed period of time for availing self-assessment scheme cannot be made basis to deprive him of the benefit of the scheme.
According to details, the taxpayer after filing a return under the scheme wrote a letter to the income tax officer to inform him about making certain corrections in the columns of income tax form after furnishing a return.
However, the assessing officer while passing his order came to the conclusion that the applicant had filed a revised return which was done after the extended date of filing of return, therefore, it was not qualified under the self-assessment scheme and was not immune from total audit.
The relevant forum maintained that if a person having furnished a return, discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may, without prejudice to any liability incurred, may furnish a return at any time before the assessment is made.
It further said that writing a letter to the income tax officer while making certain corrections in the columns of the income tax form would amount to filing a revised return under the law.
The taxpayer had never altered the total amount of income or the tax so payable, and it was only by way of a letter that the taxpayer approached the income tax officer by stating that the mistake is in respect of placing the correct figures in relevant columns.
It had no effect on the liability of tax, not any income was revised upwards or downwards. Income in both the situations was shown as higher by 20 percent from the income so assessed in the immediate past assessment year.
The appellate forum declared him qualified under the self-assessment scheme, as it does not tantamount to a revision of income or a revised return without having any direct impact on the total income of the taxpayer.
It pointed out that the scheme being initiated for benefit of a taxpayer as well as seeking higher taxes with a minimum increase of 20 percent of income in favour of the department, has to be construed liberally and not strictly, or in the manner as has been done in the present case.
