“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

M/S. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax, Circle 13(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1865/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

filed u/s 139(1) on 30.09.2010, the TDS claim was Rs.10,62,11,325/- which was enhanced to Rs.13,70,80,237/- by filing revised return on 29.03.2012” and “thus, the delay was on the part of the assessee to make correct claim of refund”. The interest payment of Rs.43

Kantilal Jain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

contended that the returned income should be reduced by Rs.62,7501-. This issue of making a new claim other than by filing a revised return is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Lalji Purushottam Babhoyya Patel, Altinho

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 361/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 2,53,89,129/- and accordingly declared the income of Rs.2,57,40,889/- in the Revised Return of Income. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the admitted additional income was due to the investigations carried out by the Department

Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Patel, Altinho vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 339/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 949/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.S.R.V.V. Surya Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT (DR)

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)

chapter VIA under the normal provisions and Rs. 204,62,90,909/- as book profit u/s I15JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 29th October, 2007 declaring total income at Nil and the book profit at Rs.197,74,95,284/-. The return was selected for scrutiny

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1722/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.S.R.V.V. Surya Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT (DR)

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)

Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 8(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1245/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

business of traders and retailers. The original return of income was filed by the assessee company on 30/11/2013 for the A.Y.2013-14 and revised return was filed on 27/06/2014 declaring total income of Rs.’Nil and claiming current year losses of Rs.265,55,98,128/-. The assessee filed one more revised ... business loss’. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28/12/2016 accepting the returned loss of the assessee as per the revised return filed on 26.3.2015. 3.2. This assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s.263

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

assessee company electronically filed its original return of income for the Asst Year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 4 M/s. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd., and revised return of income on 15.05.2015 declaring total loss of Rs 11,17,43,018/-. In the said return, since there was a Gross Total Loss

Neelam Medatwal, Jaipur vs. Pcti-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

claimed deduction u/s 54F OF Rs.7,84,968/- was not shown in original ITR filed which was on 16.12.2016. Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return showing claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs.7,84,968/ on 31.03.2018. During the year the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F & valuation report for supporting ... claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs.7,84,968/- which was not shown in ITR filed on 16-12-2016. Thereafter, the assessee had filed revised return showing deduction claimed of Rs.l7,84,968/- pm 31-03-2018 u/s 54F of the Act. The AO during the course of assessment noted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

business of investment holdings and consultancy services. The assessee electronically filed its return of income on 30/11/2011 and subsequently e-filed a revised return of income on M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 29/03/2013, declaring total income of Rs. 271,27,97,470 under normal

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

M/S. Hanumanthappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 46Section 96

income before the A.O. The assessee has also not made any claim before the A.O., neither by way of letter nor by way of revised return. However, before the CIT(A), the assessee has made a claim that the capital gain arises out of compulsory acquisition of land by KIADB

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahima Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against the assessee are hereby quashed

ITA 2486/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhacit – 2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Mahima Stocks Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakarbhavan, 1,Gaureshapartments, M.K.Road, Old Police Line, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2983K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Mahita Nair.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vimal Punmiya.AR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

normal provisions of the Act and Rs.15,67,45,568/- under the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act. The assessee has filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. 7,70,42,550/- under normal provisions of the Act and of Rs.12 ... discussed. The Assessing Officer (A.O) on perusal of the financial Mahima Stocks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. statements found that the assessee company has filed the revised return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 with a total income of Rs.7,70,42,550/- under the normal provisions

M/S S B Data Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

company and is mainly in the business of trading of IT equipments and peripherals. For the year under consideration, assessee filed its revised return of income on 30/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8,66,050. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed from financial of the assessee

H.U.F. of His Late Highness Sir J.M. Scindia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range -18(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Us :-

Section 154Section 244A

Asst Year 1997-98 on 27.6.1997 declaring total income of Rs 7,98,51,710/- including interest income and capital gains . b) Subsequently, revised return of income was filed on 17.12.1997 declaring total income of Rs 7,90,70,840/- offering some interest income on bank fixed deposits. c) Assessee ... declared Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 7,64,67,960/- in original and revised returns. The capital gains adopted by the assessee related to sale of land at Shri Shringanda & Limper Gaon at Aundh. The ld. AO made changes in computation of capital gains on account of different value

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 6(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 194Section 24

India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 wherein it was held that assessee cannot make a fresh claim before the AO without filing a revised return. He held that for cases referred by assessee, facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee’s case. Hence ... case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that a fresh claim cannot be made otherwise that by the revised return of income. In the same decision, it was held that in their order in that case, will not impinge upon the ITAT to admit claims otherwise

M/S. Patel Brass Works Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ACIT-Circle-5, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 60/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80I

filing of return of income. The AO observed that as per provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act, the assessee could file revised return of income up to 31.03.2013. The revised statement filed during assessment proceedings on 07.10.2013 was thus beyond even the stipulated last date of I.T.A ... 60/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 M/s. Patel Brass Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT filing of revised return of income. The AO was of the view that in absence of revised return of income u/s 139(5), the claim of assessee could not be entertained. The assessing officer also

Maheshwari Samaz Sampati Trust, Bhilwara vs. ITO Exemption, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kabra (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

regularly filing its return of Income tax and claiming the deductions of expenses u/s 11 against the income so earned. It had also filed revised return on 07.03.2017 under section 139(5) which was treated as defective by the CPC due to non-auditing of books of account

Ijm(India) Infrastruture Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 392/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ijm (India) Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaac17067A. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 admitting total loss of Rs.1,17,54,97,108/-. Subsequently, filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs.1,17,50,43,145/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2017 declaring loss of Rs.109

Hemal Maganlal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

claimed deduction on account of interest paid. During scrutiny, he confessed to have made a mistake in claiming the aforesaid deduction and submitted a revised return and paid the applicable tax. The revenue considered it as a case of intentional and deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee ... office premises of another assessee unearthed some records which showed that assessee made certain payments to 'another' assessee were disallowable - Assessee filed revised return and offered said amount as disallowable item under section 37(1) - Assessing Officer held that there was deliberate concealment of income on part of assessee, since