← All Phrases

“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
89
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
84
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
76
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

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee company has also filed the Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur revised return declaring loss of Rs. 8,27,82,626/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny under computer aided scrutiny selection (CASS) due to large increase

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee company has also filed the Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur revised return declaring loss of Rs. 8,27,82,626/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny under computer aided scrutiny selection (CASS) due to large increase

M/S Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-3, Jaipur

ITA 689/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep JhanwarFor Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of not completing the assessment and computing income on the basis of revised return of income filed by the assessee on 01.12.2015. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the disallowance ... left-over ground is ground no. 1 and 4. The ground no. 1 is in relation to the completing the assessment without considering the revised return of income filed in time by the assessee company. For this ground the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his finding that the apex court

M/S Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 688/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep JhanwarFor Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of not completing the assessment and computing income on the basis of revised return of income filed by the assessee on 01.12.2015. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the disallowance ... left-over ground is ground no. 1 and 4. The ground no. 1 is in relation to the completing the assessment without considering the revised return of income filed in time by the assessee company. For this ground the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his finding that the apex court

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3507/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR
Section 80I

section 40b talks of working partner to whom remuneration can be paid. Apart from the above, ld.CIT(A) further observed that in a revised return assessee itself disallowed this expenditure suomoto. Once this amount has been added back, then the AO is not justified to add back it again

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three additional grounds mentioned above are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2701/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 43(6)(c)

however, did not allow the claim, as he took the view that the assessee should have made the new claim by filing revised return of income as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-11(2), Bangalore

ITA 1358/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

Ground no.2 to 5). 15. The assessee filed its original return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.9.2010 and subsequently filed revised return on 18.3.2010 declaring NIL income, after set off of brought forward business loss of Rs.25,57,11,432. The return was processed

M/S Information Technology Park Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1357/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)

Ground no.2 to 5). 15. The assessee filed its original return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.9.2010 and subsequently filed revised return on 18.3.2010 declaring NIL income, after set off of brought forward business loss of Rs.25,57,11,432. The return was processed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 4108/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40Section 41(1)Section 43Section 43(5)(d)Section 43BSection 72

year, which is pre requisite for allowance u/s 43B of the IT Act. Also, the deduction was not claimed in the original or the revised return as required by the section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. 9. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 595/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.594 & 595/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range-11, Pune. 8Th Floor, Cello Platina, Fergusson College Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. Pan : Aabck1730B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.594/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

director of the appellant company admitted additional income of Rs.22,62,859/- on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appellant company filed a revised return of income on 13.03.2013, offered the said additional income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Jt. Commissioner of Income ... case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the assessee had filed revised return of income only after detection of concealed income during the course of survey proceedings and, therefore, the fact that the assessee disclosed the additional

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 594/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.594 & 595/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range-11, Pune. 8Th Floor, Cello Platina, Fergusson College Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. Pan : Aabck1730B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.594/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

director of the appellant company admitted additional income of Rs.22,62,859/- on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appellant company filed a revised return of income on 13.03.2013, offered the said additional income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Jt. Commissioner of Income ... case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Delhi). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the assessee had filed revised return of income only after detection of concealed income during the course of survey proceedings and, therefore, the fact that the assessee disclosed the additional

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleorient Overseas Container Line Limited V. Dcit(It)-3(2)(2) C/O. Oocl (India) Private Limited 16Th Floor Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Air India Building Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Nariman Point Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaaco5679E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 234CSection 44B

income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income of ₹.76,27,82,420/- and claim of prepaid taxes of ₹.36,60,13,506/-. Subsequently assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of ₹.76,36,71,290/- and claim of prepaid taxes of ₹.36,63,87,406/-. The return

Isha Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 949/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Isha Vijay Udani V. Cit(Appeals)-36 A/11, Aditya Apartment 707B, C-10 Old Nagardas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Acbpu4746L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Choksy Department By : Shri R.N. D'Souza

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksyFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D'Souza
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

A.Y.2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are, Assessee filed her return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of ₹.NIL. Subsequently, revised return 2 Ms. Isha Vijay Udani of income was filed on 07.04.2015 declaring total income of ₹.Nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 578/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80J

I.T.Act, since CBDT had extended the due date to 15.02.2021 vide Notification No.93/2020 dated 31.12.2020). The assessee subsequently filed revised return on 30.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.481,22,57,300. The assessee had opted for the new tax regime u/s 115BAA of the I.T.Act. This fact is mentioned ... relevant column in ITR-6 filed in the original as well as revised return of income. The assessee did not file Form No.10-IC electronically within the due date. However, it was claimed it has filed the same physically on 18.11.2021. Subsequent to the Board Circular No.06/2022 dated 17.03.2022, the assessee

Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6983/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik
Section 43B

while preparing the computation of taxable income by the appellant, merely on the ground that it was not claimed by filing of a revised return in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported ... 6983/Del/2019 that this claim of the assessee was not entertained by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not file revised return making this claim. The ld. Counsel submits that on appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) did not entertain the claim of the assessee quoting the decision

Divya Fashions Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, Surat

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

ITA 155/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.155/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Divya Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Sy. No.1, Plot No.2, B/H Rathi Tax(Appeal)/ Nfac, Palace, Umarwada, Ring Road, Delhi. Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1661 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2022

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 along with detailed questionnaire calling certain details was duly served upon the assessee. In the meantime, the assessee filed a revised return on 02/03/2019, revising the total income to Rs.92,610/-. However, the assessing officer noted that the revised return was filed by assessee after

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was “large difference in cash in hand shown in Balance sheet as per return of income and revised return of income (part A-BS of the return) & revised return filed after 07.11.2016 and cash deposit reported in SFT 14”. In the said assessment ... present case noted that credit of Rs. 57,11,651/- cannot be given for the opening cash balance as per revised return of AY 2016-17 as it is a non-est return and to this extent, the amount is to be brought

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 899/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Sittaraman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT-DR) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 30Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

erred both in Law and on the Facts of the case in not adjudicating the ground for adopting the total income as per the revised return instead of original return and in sustaining the following disallowances: Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) 38,10,84,455 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii ... following heads: (a) Depreciation in investments (not quantified) (b) Deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) (not quantified) 2. He failed to appreciate that the revised return was filed on 21.03.2014, within the due date prescribed under the Act and that, therefore, the revised return should have been adopted, in place

The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Karur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 671/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri G. Sittaraman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT-DR) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 30Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

erred both in Law and on the Facts of the case in not adjudicating the ground for adopting the total income as per the revised return instead of original return and in sustaining the following disallowances: Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) 38,10,84,455 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii ... following heads: (a) Depreciation in investments (not quantified) (b) Deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) (not quantified) 2. He failed to appreciate that the revised return was filed on 21.03.2014, within the due date prescribed under the Act and that, therefore, the revised return should have been adopted, in place

Kanchan Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpl Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal(सम" "ी राजपाल यादव उपा"" एवं "ी िगरीश अ"वाल लेखा सद" Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanchan Chakraborty Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 5/3/1B, M M Feeder Road, 61(2), Kolkata. Vs. Ariadaha, West Bengal- 700057 (Pan:Afppc5399L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Roy, Ar Respondent By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1042654910(1) Dated 08.04.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-61(2), Kolkata Dated 16.12.2019. 2. Shri K. M. Roy, Ld. Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Addition Of Rs.155,000 Towards Cash Deposited In Bank Account During Demonetization Period As Undisclosed Income Is Unsustainable & Incorrect As The Assessee Has Regularly Earned Salary Substantially To Cover Cash Deposit. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed On The Scrutiny Of Original Return Subsequently Revised Is Non-Est & Unsustainable In The Eyes Of 2 Kanchan Chakraborty, A.Y: 2017-18 The Law Since The Original Return Was Substituted By The Revised Return For The Purpose Of Assessment.”

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

unsustainable in the eyes of 2 Kanchan Chakraborty, A.Y: 2017-18 the law since the original return was substituted by the revised return for the purpose of assessment.” 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 27.07.2017 declaring