Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed original, first revised, and second revised returns of income. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal, holding that the second revised return filed on 23.02.2022 was beyond the due date of 31.12.2021.
Held
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2021, the due date for filing revised returns for AY 2021-22 was extended to 31.03.2022. Therefore, the assessee's second revised return filed on 23.02.2022 was within the due date.
Key Issues
Whether the second revised return filed by the assessee was within the due date as per the extended due date specified by the CBDT Circular.
Sections Cited
139(5), 139(1), 45(2a), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the CIT(A) vide DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070485048(1) dated 20.11.2024, challenging the Order of CIT(A) that the CIT(A) has not accepted second revised return filed by the assessee within the due date for filing revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that original return was filed on 30.08.2021 declaring income of Rs.2,19,04,730/- and paid self assessment tax of Rs.37,11,569/-. On 01.10.2021 assessee filed return of income under section 139(5) of the Act declaring income of Rs.2,18,34,470/- claiming refund of Rs.9,210/-. On 02.11.2021, the CPC processed return filed under section 139(1) of the Act and raised a demand of Rs.1,430/-. On 23.02.2022 assessee filed second revised return declaring the taxable income of Rs.45,77,640/- and claiming a refund of Rs.28,45,310/-. Assessee filed return due to significant errors in capital gains computation by ICICI bank PMS on sale of Infosys Ltd., shares (i) omission to apply, grant provision of this by adopting FMV Rs.1,167/- share as on 31.01.2018 for Rs.86,700/- shares held (ii) incorrect cost as Nil (iii) non-compliance with FIFO method mandated under section 45(2a) of the Act. These errors led to incorrect capital gain in earlier return. On 23.03.2022 CPC processed the second revised return filed by the assessee and determined refund of Rs.28,45,310/- plus applicable interest under section. On 20.04.2022 CPC processed the first revised return filed on 01.10.2021 resulting in higher income and consequently demand was also raised. Further, on 11.05.2022 assessee filed online application under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the intimation generated on 20.04.2022 and requested that the second revised return has been processed on 23.02.2022 generating refund. On 17.05.2022, the CPC rejected application under section 154 of the Act. Against the Order of rejection under section 154 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that due date for filing revised return was 31.12.2021 and the assessee filed second revised return on 23.02.2022 is barred by limitation and rejected appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the learned CIT(A) is completely wrong. As per the circular No.17/2021 dated 09.09.2021 F.No.225/49/2021/ITA-II issued by the CBDT Sl.No.6 the due date for furnishing of belated / revised return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 which was 31.12.2021 was extended upto 31.03.2022. Therefore the assessee has rightly revised the return within the due date specified under section 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, finding of the learned CIT(A) is wrong. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment in the case of Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., Vs. JCIT and Another Order dated 21.12.2004.
On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities
Considering the submissions of the assessee and facts available on records and Order of authorities below, we noted that the assessee revised his return of income second time within due date as specified in the Circular cited above in para No.6. Due date had been extended upto 31.03.2022. In view of this assessee revised the return second time on 23.02.0222 is within due date as specified under section 139(5) of the Act. We do not find any provision which prohibits for revising the return several times. Accordingly, assessee has revised return within the due date specified. Since the claim of assessee has not been examined by any of the authorities below, therefore this issue is remitted back to the jurisdictional JAO for examination for the correct computation of income as per law. The JAO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent evidence and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.