“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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

ITA - 393 / 2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2023

Section 271(1)(c)

respondent/assessee had declared its income amounting to Rs.1,20,19,74,162/-. 10.1. It appears that the respondent/assessee had filed a revised return, whereby, the total taxable income was pegged at Rs.1,19,91,36,679/-. 10.2 Evidently, the respondent/assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. Pursuant to the assessment

Mystuc Ekectribucs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5867/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

case are that assessee company filed its return of income on 31.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 31,51,330/-. Assessee filed a revised return on 31.03.2015 declaring the income at Rs. 35, 48,140/-; however there was no reason on record for revising the return of income. Consequently, case

Mukta Agriculture Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(CC)-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes respectively and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5778/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

case are that assessee company filed its return of income on 31.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 17,48,510/-. Assessee filed a revised return on 31.03.2015 declaring the same income; however there was no reason on record for revising the return of income. Consequently, case of the assessee

Gurdip Singh Kapur Legal Heir Smt.Nirmal Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle -2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Gurdip Singh Kapur, Versus Acit, Circle 2(1)(2), Through Legal Heir-Smt. Nirmal International Taxation, Kapur, D-6/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Cygpp2489G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Sh. Vikram Kakkar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54

Assessing Officer rejected such claim on the ground that the claim was not made either in the original return of income or in 4 revised return of income. In this context, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India ... that such claim cannot be entertained as it was not made either in the original return of income or through revised return of income. Even, learned DRP has endorsed the aforesaid view of the Assessing Officer. A careful reading of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, 10, Sadgurunagar, Nasik 422007, Maharashtra, India vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Agra Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act of Rs.1,87,000/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of Income on 21/07/2017 electronically admitting Total Income of Rs.4,11,670/- and claiming deduction under Chapter 2 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A] VI-A of Rs.3 ... Rs.1,50,868/-. The assessee did not claim any deduction under section 80D, 80DD, 80G and 80GG as claimed in the revised return of income. Assessment was completed on 22.09.2021 determining total income at Rs.7,49,590/-. 3. There was a survey in the case of Mr.Kishore Patil, Tax Practitioner

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Dbs Technology Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 151/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee also annexed a note to the computation of income clearly stating as above. However, thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the IT Act on 23.12.2002 and filed a declaration under Section 10B (8) which admittedly was after ... they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

rejecting assessee’s claim. 9. With regard to fee written off, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the claim was made in the revised return on the ground that it was inadvertently omitted to be claimed in the original return. The assessee had not furnished any details before the Assessing

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

Viney Corporation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Viney Corporation Ltd., Vs Acit, E-872, 1St Floor, Saraswati Vihar, Circle-26(2), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacv0446L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Ms. Swati Joshi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(1)(iia)

adjudicating this issue and not allowing the claim on new grounds i.e claim not allowable as not have been made through a revised return, which is illegal, untenable and bad in law. 4.2. That the learned AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case

M/S Pricol Limited, Coimbatore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.642/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Pricol Limited Dcit बनाम 109, Cpm Towers, Race Course, Corporate Circle-2, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcp-0139-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Suraj Nahar (Ca)-Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mohan Reddy (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

However, keeping in view the consistent methodology being followed by the assessee, the same was excluded while computing Book-Profits u/s 115JB in the revised return of income. In other words, Book-Profits were increased to the extent of loss suffered on investments. The Ld. AR submitted that the said ... corporate assessee filed original return of income declaring ‘Nil’ income under normal provisions and Book-Profits u/s 115JB for Rs.60.93 Lacs. However, in the revised return filed on 04.10.2017 and 22.03.2018, the book-profits were revised to Rs.38.39 Crores and Rs.29.83 Crores respectively. The Ld. AO framed the assessment

Radheshyam Foundation, Bhayandar vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 115TSection 143(3)

mistakes in the ITR. Further, in case of any mistake, as per the provisions of the Act, the appellant could have filed the revised return of income. In the absence of revised return of income, the AO does not have any option other than to consider the original ... done any activity related to section 115TD. Before the Tribunal the assessee has not come up to explain if he has filed any revised return under the provisions contained in Income Tax Act. Moreover, since Ld. CIT(A) is empowered to entertain and decide the claim of assessee even without

Dy.CIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 366/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. C I T Vs. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Circle 16(2) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcm9780D (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 47

admitting income of Rs.1,14,00,240/-. Subsequently, the assessee company revised its income by filing a revised return on 31.01.2009 duly including the capital gains on receipt of sale of property, which the assessee originally claimed exemption u/s 47(iv) in the original returned income. The case was selected ... disposal of re-assessment proceedings. The appellant avers that the working of the Long-term capital gains was furnished by them along with the revised return of income filed on 31.01.2009. The said long term capital gain offered considered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 234C(1)Section 250

no.1293/Mum./2023 under the MAT provisions by way of advance tax, and a refund was determined amounting to Rs.10,21,755. The said revised return was processed vide intimation dated 12/04/2009 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the entire income declared by the assessee was accepted, however

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO-2(5) Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasahakari Ganna Vikas Vs. Ito-2(5), Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-244 412 Pan No. Aaaaf 1459 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. Clix Finance India P.Ltd (Earlier Known As Ge Capital Services India Ltd), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 144C

appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 54,60,29,396/- and subsequently filed revised return. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C

Birla Transasia Carpets, Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 4911/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 68

Plain & Design Carpets & Woolen Yarn. The assessee company filed its return of income on 30/09/2008 declaring total income Nil. Later, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 24/12/2008 declaring a loss of Rs.1,18,54,341/-. This revised return filed by the assessee was taken due cognizance

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Birla Transasia Carpet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 4329/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 68

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

Shri Rajkot Distt. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 30(1)(viii)Section 35(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(viii)

viii) on the ground that the modification in deduction claim was made otherwise than by filing a revised return 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals), Rajkot 3 has erred in not exercising his discretionary powers ... cannot be allowed the deduction higher than claim of assessee in the return of income. The assessee could claim higher deduction only through revised return of Income which he has not done. In view of the decision of Honable Apex court in the case of Goetze India Limited

Shree Raj Foundation, Mum vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections