“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

Late. Sh. Gumail Singh . S/O. Sh. Lal Singh, Muktsar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Bathinda

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona ... mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape penalty merely on the ground that

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/KOL/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

filed on 31.01.2005 which was accompanied with audited financial statements and tax audit report u/s. 44AB and various other details. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 27.12.2005 reporting total income of Rs. 2,53,31,970/-. 6.2. Details called for by Ld. AO were duly complied with. Assessment

M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2502/KOL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Ernst & Youg Merchant Banking Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Karnataka

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

ITA 224/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

income on 30.10.2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 16.34 crores, which was later revised to Rs. 16.33 crores by way of filing a revised return of income. The said return of income was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, wherein the CPC proposed

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3574/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaaddl. Cit Vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, Room No. 352, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

hydrocarbons and general trade. Return of income for assessment year 2009-10 was filed declaring total income of Rs.80,95,27,323 (as per revised return of income). Regular assessment was completed vide order dated 20.03.2013, passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessing total income at Rs.255

Interglobe Air Transport, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Somya Jain, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R. S. Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

agent of international and domestic passengers and cargo operations. 2 Inter Globe Air Transport Ltd. For the year under consideration, the applicant filed its revised return of income on 04.02.2019 declaring income of Rs.25,81,38,450/-. The return filed by the applicant was processed under section

Shavva Sudheer Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

admission of income. In the instant case, the appellant did not admit these undisclosed incomes u/s 69B in the revised returns filed u/s 153A and admitted the undisclosed income only during the assessment Page 5 of 17 ITA 402 of 2022 Shavva Sudheer Reddy proceedings u/s 153A which were initiated

Kishorepur Paschimanchal S K U S Limited, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 250Section 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

Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Egra, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(4), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 250Section 80P

M/S. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 690/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.690/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner- Shafee Mohammed Road, Of Income Tax, Thousands Lights, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 5443 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80J

normal provisions and at Rs.332,56,33,091/- u/s.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"). The assessee had filed its revised return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring NIL income under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.332,56,33,091/- under MAT provisions ... amount of the returned income. Further, in case, the assessee wants to rectify any mistakes in filing return of income, it can file revised return in terms of provisions of Sec.139(4) & 139(5) of the Act. Unless, the assessee rectifies the mistakes by filing revised return, there

D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is challenged on various facets in the captioned appeal and according to the appellant the revised return of income filed on 02.11.2012 would negate the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice issued ... hence the consequential penalty order passed on 26.09.2014 would get vitiated in the absence of precise charge. Moreover, the income offered in the revised return of income comprised of NRI receipts was bonafidely presumed to be non-taxable and hence the said bonafide 7 belief would constitute reasonable cause

Shanay Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO-It-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 429/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

brief. The assessee herein filed a return of income on 29.7.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 97,170/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 8.2.2019 for rectifying an error in TAN of TDS credit claimed by it. Thereafter, the assessee received a defect notice under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad

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

ITA 178/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

original return of income on 30.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.66,55,790/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,09,000/-. He filed the revised return of income on 30.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.4,25,60,720/- and Rs.12,09,000/-. The return was processed ... original cash book. He submitted that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.9.2010 admitting total income of Rs.66,55,790/-. He filed revised return of income on 30.10.2010 admitting an income of Rs.4,33,55,790/- and the additional income offered represents profit from sale of land

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 158/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

Jubilant Securities Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2545/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.20,05,980. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 28.08.2018 declaring income of Rs.18,11,980. 3. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under

Lenient Consultants P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 1704/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 251(1)Section 68

related to share 3 premium of Rs. 86,01,90,100/- along with the share capital of Rs. 1,75,54.900/- shown in the revised return as on 31.03.2014. As there are evidences for forgery and back dating and assessee is failed to produce any documentary evidences related to third

Bharatkumar L. Tejani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

ITA 540/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Near Hira Baugh Circle, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai I.T.O., Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), Vs. 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Surat. Near Hira Baugh, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54B

14/10/2014 declaring income of Rs, 1,84,080/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,28,990/-. The assessee revised his income by filing revised return of income on 02/05/2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,34,251/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,28,990/-. The case of assessee was selected

ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat vs. Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Surat

ITA 488/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54B

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. M.Bhagya Lakshmi, Kadapa

ITA 96/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

admitted fact that assessee in his original return of income has neither claimed the deduction u/s. 54F nor claimed the same by filing a revised return or before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the assessee for the first time made the claim of deduction ... case of the revenue that the assessee cannot claim the exemption u/s. 54F which was not made in the original or revised return of income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd. reported

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. S.V.Satish Kumar Reddy, Kadapa

ITA 2236/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148