SURANA MOTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, [in short ‘CIT(A)’] Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

The issue falls in a narrow compass. The same is whether the claim made by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings be considered in a case where a revised return of income has been filed ?

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant e-filed its return of income for the AY 2012-12 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,09,23,385/-. The said return was subsequently revised by it on 12.10.2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,06,61,843/-. The appellant filed the above revised return, since in the original return, disallowance u/s 43B was made at Rs.2,83,099/-, whereas it should be Rs.21,555/-. Then the appellant filed a revised statement of total income before the Assessing Officer (AO) vide letter dated 23.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs.95,66,332/- as under: “2. We are enclosing herewith the Re-revised Statement of Total Income declaring income at Rs.95,66,332/-. The aforesaid return was re-revised since bank interest and processing fees have remained to be claimed in the Books of Accounts and accordingly, the same has not been claimed as allowable expenses. As per the statement attached herewith, it may kindly be seen that bank charges, interest, processing fees and Service Tax debited by the Indus Ind Bank on various dates during the Financial Year 2011-12 amounting to Rs.10,95,510.56 on the various dates has remained to be accounted for and consequently remained to be claimed as allowable expenditure. We may also like to put on record that expenditure of Rs.10,95,510/- alongwith the expenses for FY 2010-11 & 2012-13 amounting to Rs.32,72,785/- was accounted for in the Books of Accounts relating to the FY 2013-14 (Asstt. Year 2014-15). The said sum was debited in the Books of Accounts as prior period expenses and in the Statement of Total Income relating to the Asstt. Year 2014-15 (copy enclosed). The said amount was disallowed while computing the business income. It is, therefore, submitted that as sum of Rs.10,95,510/- may kindly be allowed while passing the order u/s 143(3) relating to the Asstt. Year 2012-13. We will be glad to furnish any other information/explanation, in this regard, if desired.”

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that (i) the AO had duly considered the revised return of income of the appellant which was filed on 12.10.2012 u/s 139(5) declaring total income of Rs.1,06,61,843/- and (ii) the letter dated 25.02.2015 filed in the tapal entry 545 relating to another statement , declaring total income at Rs.95,66,132/- can neither be treated as revised return of income nor re-revised return of income as claimed by the appellant.

Before us, the Ld. counsel of the appellant submits that it had filed ‘revised statement of total income’ during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and not ‘re-revised return of income’ as the time limit for filing the revised return of income u/s 139(5) expired on 31.03.2014. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), it is submitted by him that the appellate authorities are entitled to consider the claim and adjudicate the same.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The issue here is whether the claim made by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings be considered in