Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in wire drawing, filed a revised return claiming a deduction of Rs. 6,71,052/- under Section 80JJAA, which was not made in the original return. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, citing Section 80AC, and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable.
Held
The Tribunal quashed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80JJAA. It held that a claim not made in the original return can be made through a revised return filed under Section 139(5), as such a return replaces the original. Procedural aspects, such as delayed filing of forms or audit reports, if available before assessment, should not lead to the denial of legitimate deductions.
Key Issues
Whether a deduction under Section 80JJAA can be claimed for the first time in a revised return of income, and whether the non-filing of Form 10DA with the original return or audit report is a procedural lapse that should not deny the legitimate claim.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 80JJAA, 143(2), 142(1), 80AC, 139(1), 139(5), 80A, 80IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID, 80-IE, 11(1), 11(2), 119(2)(b), Rule 19AB, Rule 12(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 901/JPR/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The said order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC arises against the order 16.03.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ITO National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. That on facts and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)[ld. CIT(A)] has erred in not admitting the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 6,71,052/-, which was raised in the grounds of appeal filed before him.
2. That the non-allowance of said claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 6,71,052/- by the ld. CIT (A) is against the provisions of the Act, CBDT Circular and the judicial precedents in this regard.
3. That on facts and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not allowing deduction as claimed u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 6,71,052/-. The said deduction is allowable in toto including as per prescribed auditor’s certificates. 4.That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other.
5. That the appellant respectfully craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or forego any ground(s) at or before the time of hearing.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of wire drawings and has three manufacturing facilities. Assessee has e-filed its Return of Income dated 25.10.2018 declaring the total income at Rs. 5,79,74,670/- for the year under consideration. The assessee filed the revised its return of income on 29.12.2018 declaring an income of Rs. 5,11,66,180/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 through ITBA portal and duly served upon the assessee. Information under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was called for vide questionnaire through ITBA. In compliance of the said notices, the assessee has submitted the details and information through e-proceeding. The information/details so filed was examined. The assessee company submitted that it has three wire drawing manufacturing facility during the assessment year. The first two units were in operation during the start of the assessment year and third unit commence production during the assessment year itself. In the revised return filed on 29.12.2018 the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 6,71,052/- under section 80JJAA, which was not claimed in the original return of income filed on 25.10.2018. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was required to furnish Form 10DA issued by Accountant and same was furnished by the assessee. As per submission, the assessee has claimed that 33 new workmen were employed during the year which were considered entitled for deduction to whom emoluments amounting to Rs, 22,36,840/- was paid and 30% of the same i.e. Rs. 6,71,052/- was claimed as deduction under section 80JJAA of the IT Act, 1961. The AO observed that assessee has not made this claim in the original Return of Income as filed under section 139(1) of the Act so as to substantiate the claim as applicable as per the provisions under section 80AC of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,24,65,422/- by making an addition of Rs. 6,71,052/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable Being dis-satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.
4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :-
“2. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE 2.1 Your honour, the brief facts are that the Assessee Bajrang Wire Products (India) Private Limited e-filed its return of income for the AY 2018- 19 on 25/10/2018 declaring an income of Rs. 5,79,74,670/- and revised its return on 29/12/2018 at income of Rs. 5,11,66,180/-. The Assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of wire drawing.
2.2 During the year assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 6,71,052/- u/s 80JJAA. The deduction was not claimed in original return of income filed on 25/10/2018 but it was claimed in revised return filed on 29/12/2018. During the assessment proceeding the assessee was requested to furnish form-10DA issued by accountant and it was furnished by the assessee. As per submission, the assessee has claimed that 33 new workmen were employed during the year, who were considered entitled to a deduction to whom emoluments amounting to Rs. 22,36,840/- was paid, and 30% of the same, i.e. Rs. 6,71,052/- was claimed as deduction u/s 80JJAA. Your honour all these facts are appearing in the Ld. AO order, pages no. 2 point no.
4. For the sake of ready reference the Section 80AC reads as under:-
Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after
the 1 st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80- IC [or 80-ID or section 80-IE];
the 1 st day of April, 2018 any deduction is admissible under any provisions of this chapter under the heading ”C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes” no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139.
2.3 Your honour, a plain reading of section 80AC makes it clear that from the assessment year 2006-07, deduction claimed under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a return on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. Nowhere in the section is it provided that unless the assessee makes a claim in its return filed under section 139(1), the said claim is allowable. The section does not speak of a claim to be made in the return filed under section 139(1). The section speaks of filing a return within the time specified under section 139(1) and nothing else. Here the assessee filed a return under section 139(1) within the due date specified, but no claim was made under section 80JJA in such return filed on 25.10.2018. However, a revised return was filed under section 139(5) on 29.12.2018 claiming deduction under section 80JJAA at Rs. 6,71,052/-, The section states that unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IE / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed, and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub- section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier.
2.4 In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 29.12.2018 (kindly see Ld. AO order, pages no. 2 point 4 line 3 wherein the Ld. AO confirmed this fact) which is before the expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions of section 139(5), as the original return was filed under section 139(1) within the due date prescribed. In fact, the assessee complied with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act by filing its original return on 25.10.2018 which is within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. In view of our above observations and finding, the Ld. AO disallowed the aforesaid deduction by holding that since the assessee had not made any claim in its original return filed under section 139(1).
2.5 Your honour the proper interpretation of the provisions of section 80A and 80AC of the Act allowed the claim of deduction of the assessee by holding that in order to claim such deduction; a. the return of income has to be furnished within the due date of furnishing the return as specified in section 139(1) of the Act; b. the accounts of the undertaking have to be audited by an Accountant as defined in the Act and c. the claim has to be made in the return of income for the relevant assessment year.
2.6 Your honour, there is no mention in the Act that the claim of deduction of the Act had to be made in the original return of incomeand that the audit report had to be signed before the date of original return and hence, the disallowance of section 80JJAA of the Act by the AO is not tenable.
2.7 Your honour, the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions stated in the statute in order to avail the benefit of the Act.
2.8 Your honour, the assessee further submits that the furnishing of Form 10DA under rule 19AB is directory in nature and not mandatory, and it is sufficient compliance if the necessary Form 10DA under rule 19AB is filed before the assessing officer before the date of assessment, which admittedly been done in this case.
2.9 Your honour, kind attention is invited to Rule 19AB of the I.T. Rules 1962, to submit that the rules do not specifically provide for disallowing the claim of assessee for late filing of the form 10 -DA. The AR for the assessee placed reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panel Board Manufacturer (kindly see paper book page no. 13-17) in which on similar facts, the Gujarat High Court held that once the appropriate form in the form of Accountant report is available with the tax officer at the time of when assessment was completed, then the benefit of exemption/deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. Kindly allow to reproduce the relevant extracts of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer v. Dy. CIT [2023] 157 taxmann.com 550 (kindly see paper book page no. 13-17) in Revenue Tax Appeal Number 655 of 2022, in which the Gujarat High Court, while dealing with similar issue held that although the requirement of furnishing report was mandatory, filing thereof is a procedural aspect. Once, it is seen that the audit report, in Form 10B was available with the assessing officer at the time of framing of assessment, even though the same may not have been filed along with the return of income, the assessee is entitled to claim of exemption under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act. The Gujarat High Court made the following observations, while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee/Appellant:
"5.3 Learned advocate for the respondent was not in position to dispute the law emanating from the decision of Xaviers Kelavani Mandal (supra) and the other decisions on the issue.
5.4 Recollecting the relevant dates, the income was filed on 31.8.2018. On 15.3.2019 Form 10B was filed electronically. On 7.12.2019 intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was given to the appellant that the exemptions were denied, while processing the return of income on the ground that alongwith the return of income Form 10B was not filed.
5.5 It is to be observed in the present case that the Form D-the audit report, though not filed with the return of income, the same was available with the Assessing Officer when he processed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The conditions for claiming exemption under Section 11 was satisfied. Although the requirement of furnishing the report was mandatory, filing it is a procedural aspect. Even though the Form 10B was filed at a later stage, when it was part of the record of the Assessing Officer in the course of the processing the return of income, the Assessing Officer could not have denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11(1) and 11(2) on the ground that the audit report was not filed.
5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119 2(b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to by the assessee. Circular No.7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued under Section 119 of the Act could not, therefore, said to have taken away the appellate remedy.
5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself in yet another way when it observed that The Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.4.2016, that is from assessment year 2016-17 changed the legal position. There is no such change which could be said to have altered the legal position. The only change is with regard to the compulsory filing of the audit report in Form 10B in electronically form which is made mandatory under Rule 12 (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, there is no change with regard to the substantive law about filing of the audit report, as stated above.
6. The moot aspect thus centers around the requirement of the of the audit report when the assessment was undertaken by the Assessing Officer even though the same may not have been filed along with the return of income. Filing of the audit report is held to be a substantive requirement but not the mode and stage of filing, which is procedural. Once the audit report in Form 12B is filed to be available with the Assessing Officer, before assessment proceedings take place, the requirement of law is satisfied. In that view, the Income Tax Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of the audit report alongwith return of income which was at the best a procedural omission, could never to an impediment in law in claiming the exemption.
6.2 Accordingly, the substantial questions of law have to be decided in favor of the appellant.
7. They are accordingly decided. The appeal is allowed. "
2.10 Your honour, it is further stated that these Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (kindly see paper book page no. 18-19) held that, even though it is necessary to file a certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. Hence, Your Honor, looking into the instant facts and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court referred to above, we request Your Honor to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80JJA of the Act 2.11 Your honour, besides the above, the section 139(5) of the Act provides that if any person having furnished any return u/s. 139(1) of the Act discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier.
2.12 Your honour, the AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) (Kindly see paper book page no. 1-2) wherein it was held that any deduction/allowance which was not claimed in the original return can only be claimed by way of a revised return to be filed within the time allowed of the Act. The ARrelied on the decision held in Dcit, Cir-4, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd,, Kolkata on 15 March, 2017 (Kindly see paper book page no. 3-8). Your honour, the AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mackintosh Burn Ltd., AY 2006-07 the case of CIT Vs. Universal Trading Co. reported in (1978) 114 ITR 412 (Cal) (Kindly see paper book page no. 9-10) held that if nothing is specifically stated in the statute, then the original return would include the revised return of income. In the instant case, since only the return of income has been stated in the statute and as such the return of income as mentioned in section 80JJA of the Act would mean revised return of income.
2.13 Your honour, the AR relied on the decision of Income tax officer v/s Ramesh Kumar Rathi ITAT Appeal No.2109 (Kol) of 2002 (Kindly see paper book page no. 11-12). wherein it was held that when the law permits the assessee to replace the original return by a revised return, on detection of any mistake in the original return, there is no reason as to why the said revised return could not be accepted as in place of original return filled under section 139(1). This view is also supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of (i) Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra (supra) and (ii) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd (supra)
2.14 Your honour, the AR relied on the decision of Dhanpur Sugar Mills 1973 v/s Commissioner of Income Tax 90 ITR 419 (Allahabad) wherein it was held that once a revised return is filed,the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. The same view has been taken in Gopaldas Parshottamdas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. &U.P. [1941]9 I.T.R. 130 Your Honour the Ld. CIT Appeal without any adverse inference passed non speaking order which is bad in law and facts. Hence your honour is requested kindly to allow the appeal and grant deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act to the assessee.
Your Honour Ground No. 4 and 5 are general in nature; therefore, not pressed.”
4.1 The ld. AR of the assessee further filed the Paper Book-1 index and Case Laws in support of his case as under :- Paper Book-1 Index S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. ITR-V with form filled on 25.10.2018 AY 2018-19 (Original) 01-99 2. ITR-V with form filled on 29.12.2018 AY 2018-19 (Revised) 100-200 3. Form 10DA AY 2017-18 201-202 Case Laws Paper Book Index
S.No. Particulars Page No. 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) 01-02 Ltd. v. CIT Civil Appeal No. 1761 of 2006 dated 24.03.2006. 2. Hon’le ITAT Kolkata vide in the case of 03-08 DCIST vs. M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd. dated 15/03/2017. 3. Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Universal 09-10 Trading Co. vide IT Reference No. 376 of 1971 dated 10/04/1978
Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata ITO V. Ramesh Kumar Rathi vide IT 11-12 Appeal No. 2109 (Kol.) of 2002 dated 07/07/2003 5. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Association of 13-17 Indian Panelboard Manufacturer v. DCIT vide R/Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries 18-19 (P) Ltd. Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 & 4048 of 2014 dated 24.07.2015
On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO denied the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs. 6,71,052/- in the Revised return filed under section 139(5) on 29.12.2018 claiming deduction under section 80JJAA instead of Original return filed under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 25.10.2018. The ld. A/R submitted that the assessee has employed 33 new workmen in its factory Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration and paid emoluments amounting to Rs. 22,36,840/- and claimed deduction @ 30% thereon i.e. of Rs. 6,72,052/- under section 80JJAA of the IT Act, 1961. During the assessment period, as required by the AO, the assessee furnished Form 10DA issued by the Accountant. But the deduction was not allowed stating that the claim of the assessee in the Revised return is not a modification or alteration of an already claimed deduction but as fresh claim of deduction on which procedural restrictions have been laid down in Section 80AC of the IT Act, 1961. The ld. CIT (A) observed that the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable as the assessee has failed to adduce any such supporting reconciliations/submissions/justifications as per law. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee contended that a plain reading of section 80AC makes it clear that from the assessment year 2006-07, deduction claimed under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a return on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. Nowhere in the section is it provided that unless the assessee makes a claim in its return filed under section 139(1), the said claim is not allowable. The section does not speak of a claim to be made in the return filed under section 139(1). The section speaks of filing a return within the time specified under section 139(1) and nothing else. Here the assessee filed a return under section 139(1) within the due date specified, but no claim was made under section 80JJAA in such return filed on 25.10.2018. However, a revised return was filed under section 139(5) on 29.12.2018 claiming deduction under section 80JJAA at Rs. 6,71,052/-, The section states that unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IE / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed, and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub- section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. The ld. A/R further contended that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 80AC of the IT Act by filing its original return on 25.10.2018 which is within the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the AO was wrong in not allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80JJAA holding that since the assessee had not made any claim in its original return filed under section 139(1). The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee rightly claimed the deduction as per provisions of section 80/80AC of the Act, which lays down that (a) the return of income has to be furnished within the due date of furnishing the return as specified in section 139(1) of the Act; (b) the accounts of the undertaking have to be audited by an Accountant as defined in the Act, and (c) the claim has to be made in the return of income for the relevant assessment year. There is no mention in the Act that the claim of deduction has to be made in the original return of income. It was further submitted that furnishing of Form 10DA under rule 19AB is directory in nature and not mandatory, and it is sufficient compliance if the necessary Form 10DA is filed before the Assessing Officer before the date of assessment, which admittedly been done in this case. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panel Board Manufacturer vs. Dy. CIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com 550 (Guj.) while dealing with similar issue has observed as under :- "5.3 Learned advocate for the respondent was not in position to dispute the law emanating from the decision of Xaviers Kelavani Mandal (supra) and the other decisions on the issue. 5.4 Recollecting the relevant dates, the income was filed on 31.8.2018. On 15.3.2019 Form 10B was filed electronically. On 7.12.2019 intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was given to the appellant that the exemptions were denied, while processing the return of income on the ground that alongwith the return of income Form 10B was not filed. 5.5 It is to be observed in the present case that the Form D-the audit report, though not filed with the return of income, the same was available with the Assessing Officer when he processed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The conditions for claiming exemption under Section 11 was satisfied. Although the requirement of furnishing the report was mandatory, filing it is a procedural aspect. Even though the Form 10B was filed at a later stage, when it was part of the record of the Assessing Officer in the course of the processing the return of income, the Assessing Officer could not have denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11(1) and 11(2) on the ground that the audit report was not filed. 5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import of Section 119 2(b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to by the assessee. Circular No.7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued under Section 119 of the Act could not, therefore, said to have taken away the appellate remedy. 5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself in yet another way when it observed that The Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.4.2016, that is from assessment year 2016-17 changed the legal position. There is no such change which could be said to have altered the legal position. The only change is with regard to the compulsory filing of the audit report in Form 10B in electronically form which is made mandatory under Rule 12 (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, there is no change with regard to the substantive law about filing of the audit report, as stated above.
6. The moot aspect thus centers around the requirement of the of the audit report when the assessment was undertaken by the Assessing Officer even though the same may not have been filed along with the return of income. Filing of the audit report is held to be a substantive requirement but not the mode and stage of filing, which is procedural. Once the audit report in Form 12B is filed to be available with the Assessing Officer, before assessment proceedings take place, the requirement of law is satisfied. In that view, the Income Tax Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of the audit report alongwith return of income which was at the best a procedural omission, could never to an impediment in law in claiming the exemption. 6.2 Accordingly, the substantial questions of law have to be decided in favor of the appellant.
They are accordingly decided. The appeal is allowed. "
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2016)71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC) while dealing with the issue of claim of additional depreciation, allowed the claim of deduction by observing that –
“ ……. Even if Form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made that would amount to sufficient compliance. These appeals are, accordingly dismissed “.
We also observe that a Revised Return is simply a corrected version of the original income tax return filed by a taxpayer. Under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, a taxpayer can submit a revised return if they discover any omissions or errors in their original filing. This could include incorrect income reporting, missed deductions, or even typographical mistakes. The Revised Return replaces the original one, making it as though the original error never happened. In the light of facts discussed herein above and following the judicial precedents, supra, we quash the order of impugned order, and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/09/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAM GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/09/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur, RJN-C-(104)(1). 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत