“revised return”

Assessment ProceduresSection 139(5)Section 139(5)10,551 judgments

The decision most relied on for revised return is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revised return

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court

349

citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court

205

citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT

298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing an assessment order after accepting a revised return, the Commissioner acts within their power under section 263 to direct a fresh assessment.

Judgments citing revised return

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2707/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

from Other Sources" and 100% of the rental income from "House Property" in Singapore amounting to Rs. 23,71,076/-, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.07.2017 in which the above said incomes were included. The AO completed the assessment by making the addition ... income declared by the assessee in the revised return of income. The relevant observations of the AO are extracted below: “3. On verification of the ITS details it was observed that the assessee has not offered Rs. 6,21,662/- under the head income from other sources

Rohit Chatterji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA

ITA 2706/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1), Room No.130, 1St Floor, 501, Arun Chambers, Ayakar Bhavan, Tardeo, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai -400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1066G (अपीऱाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hitesh P. Shah.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Its Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Its Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Disregarding The Fact That The Accountant Had Made Inadvertent Mistake In Claiming Deduction U/S.35(2Aa).

Section 35

return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 disclosing a total income of Rs. 14,02,381/- and the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.10.2018 disclosing the same total income. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme

Harish Gandhi, Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

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

ITA 812/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 57

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has misinterpreted Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act in furtherance thereof had treated the revised return as infructuous. 4. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the total addition of Rs. 27,47,508/- to the total ... same should have been claimed under the head “Business Income”. It was further submitted by the assessee that he has filed his revised return of income claiming the deduction under the head “Business Income”.. 3.1 The reply so filed by the assessee was considered but not found acceptable

Rakesh Kumar Somani, Khandwa vs. ITO-1, Khandwa

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 215/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 147

assessee is because, the assessee has not disclosed the sale proceeds of the land sold in the original return of income. Whereas, in the revised return of income filed in pursuance to the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act, the assessee has offered the amount received from sale

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 556/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 556/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aban Offshore Limited, V. Tax, 113, Janpriya Crest, Corporate Circle -1(1), Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai. Tamilnadu – 600 008. [Pan:Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Virtual) ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Nanda Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35DSection 90Section 92C

filed its return of income on 28/11/2014, admitting total income of Rs.16,02,59,960/-. Subsequently, the company filed a revised return of income on 26/11/2015 declaring Rs.NIL income after claiming current year loss of Rs.112,66,71,006/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and referred

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

that Tribunal has the power to entertain the claim of deduction not claimed before the AO by filing the revised return and tribunal in exercising of its power u/s 254 justified in accepting this claim though no revised return u/s 139(5) was fled before the AO also refer

Andrew Jerome Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 664/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 90

relief by the CPC in the intimation dated 15 December 2021 amounting to Rs. 3,64,686 as claimed by the appellant in the revised Return of Income. Andrew Jerome Joseph, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 2.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating fact that the income ... considering the Form 67 and other document submitted along with Form 67 on 31 March 2021 i.e., on or before filing of revised return of income. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) and the CPC have erred in not granting credit to the Appellant on foreign tax paid in spite

Krishnakumar Balasankara Subramanian, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 247/BANG/2024[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Preeti Goel, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 245Section 90

India-Japan DTAA read with Section 90 of the Act i.e. Form 67 duly filed by the Appellant at the time of filing the revised return of income (ROI) including proof of taxes deducted/ paid in Japan alongn with computation of FTC / judicial precedents cited. 6. Learned ... assessee is a Resident received salary from Nokia Japan during the relevant previous salary received has been shown—under Income from Salaries in the Revised Return filed for AY 2018-19. The assessee filed Form No 67 on 29.32019. As per Rule 128, the assessee was under obligation to declaration

Abhay Rai, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3486/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.”

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 144Section 145(3)

total turnover of Rs. 18,35,113,996) after rejecting Books of Accounts u/s 145(3) overlooking the revised return filed u/s 139(5) by assessee. 5. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for not giving the benefit of income declared in return u/s 139 amounting

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

ITA 824/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

sale of land. (2) Whether Ld. CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee of filing revised return after getting final show cause incorporating the undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.1,21,90,000/- and claiming the same as exempt ... estimates only whereas sufficient evidences, statement of the employee dealing with the properties and also the assessee himself accepting the same by filing revised return. 3 ITA Nos. 824/Del/2018. & Ors. (4) Whether the employee of the assessee whose statement was recorded in the premises of the assessee during the course

Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

Patel Inn and Travels Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT(OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Now the ITO Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 814/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" Patel Inn & Travels The Jt.Cit(Osd) बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. 59, Op. Rural Police Head Quarters, B/H. S. G. Now The Ito, Ward- Highway, Makarba Road, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp9068M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2024 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 22.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2011-12 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.81,08,580/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Had Filed A Revised Return On 17.02.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.68,93,150/-. The Assessment Was

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 156

filed by the assessee on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.81,08,580/-. Subsequently, the assessee had filed a revised return on 17.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs.68,93,150/-. The assessment was ITA No. 814/Ahd/2023 [Patel Inn And Travels Private Limited vs. Jt.CIT(OSD)] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 – completed ... under Section 143(3) of the Act on 05.03.2014 at total income of Rs.68,93,150/- as per revised return. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under Section 154 of the Act on 19.03.2018 and the income was revised to Rs.1,06,55,305/-. In the rectification order, the unabsorbed

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 admitting a total income of Rs. 62,19,22,600/- . Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2011, declaring a net loss of Rs.18,04,47,434/-. The assessment was completed by the learned Assessing Officer ... Rs.5,11,09,716/- under Business Income. 10.3 Before me the appellant submitted that : a) Rs.5,11,09,716/- was wrongly added in the revised return as profit on sale of investment which was not there in the original return filed, and that there were no sales of investments