KARNATAKA WATER AND SANITATION POOLED FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DDCI(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-17(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 879/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 October 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have wide powers to admit claims not made in the revised return. The assessee should have been allowed to claim the revised income on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised statement of income during assessment proceedings, which was ignored by the AO. The CIT(A) also denied the claim, stating it should have been filed as a revised return.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to make a revised claim during assessment or appellate proceedings, and whether the AO/CIT(A) were justified in rejecting it on technical grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 14.08.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A), Kochi vide order dated 27/12/2024 in DIN No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071626129(1) for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

In this case, the assessee during assessment proceedings filed a revised statement of income dated 31 January 2013. However, the AO while passing order under section 143(3) of the Act on 15 March 2013 did not consider the revised claim. The learned CIT(A) also denied the claim. His view was that such a claim could have been made only by filing a revised return of income. Accordingly, he rejected the claim made before him.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The learned AR submitted that the AO and the CIT(A) were not correct in law. The assessee was entitled to make a fresh or revised claim during assessment or appellate proceedings. The AO and the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to entertain such claim. The ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323, wherein it was clarified that appellate authorities have wide powers to admit such claims even if they were not made in the revised return. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the revised claim on a technical ground.

5.

The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee had the option to file a revised return as per section 139(5) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to do so, the AO was right in ignoring the revised statement. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) also rightly declined to accept the claim because the assessee should have taken recourse to the statutory procedure.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had filed a revised statement of income . during assessment proceedings. However, the AO ignored it and the ld. CIT(A) also refused to admit the claim.

6.1 The law is well settled that the appellate authority has plenary powers to do what the AO ought to have done. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. restricted only the power of the AO, but not the appellate authorities. Thus, the reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable.

6.2 Considering these legal principles, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee should have been admitted and considered on merits. Non-consideration of the revised claim has resulted in denial of justice. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall consider the revised claim of the assessee in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 9th day of October, 2025

More judgments on Section 139(5)

All 830 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →