← 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

Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1706/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Virender Arora V. Dcit – Central Circle – 6(4) S-14, 6Th Floor Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Air India Building, Nariman Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Shri Ajay Virender Arora Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor S-14, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Solitaire Corporate Park Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain & Shri Ravikanth Pathak Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain &For Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 127(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

appreciate which return of income should be filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A, whether the original return of income filed or revised return of income. As held that the Hon’ble Court held that nothing prevented the revenue from mentioning in the notice the basis for issuing

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring total income of Rs.349,71,39,843, under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income on 20/04/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 371,48,26,981, under normal provisions of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ... brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from record, are: The assessee, while filing the revised return of income, claimed deduction of 2,87,39,000 at 30% of the profits (being 5th year of claim) under section 80IB of the Act, in respect of erstwhile

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring total income of Rs.349,71,39,843, under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income on 20/04/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 371,48,26,981, under normal provisions of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ... brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from record, are: The assessee, while filing the revised return of income, claimed deduction of 2,87,39,000 at 30% of the profits (being 5th year of claim) under section 80IB of the Act, in respect of erstwhile

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring total income of Rs.349,71,39,843, under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income on 20/04/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 371,48,26,981, under normal provisions of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ... brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from record, are: The assessee, while filing the revised return of income, claimed deduction of 2,87,39,000 at 30% of the profits (being 5th year of claim) under section 80IB of the Act, in respect of erstwhile

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring total income of Rs.349,71,39,843, under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income on 20/04/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 371,48,26,981, under normal provisions of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings ... brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from record, are: The assessee, while filing the revised return of income, claimed deduction of 2,87,39,000 at 30% of the profits (being 5th year of claim) under section 80IB of the Act, in respect of erstwhile

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

Audit report in Form 10CCB is only a discretionary condition and not a mandatory condition as held by Honourable Supreme court. Legal Issue 2 -Revised Return steps into shoes of original return, for all purpose. 2. The revised return filed under section 139(4) within extended due date, by rectifying ... original return from the date the original return was filed. 3. The learned Assessing officer / CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the revised return filed after rectifying the original return by filing report of an accountant in Form 10CCB. Legal Issue 3 - relating to Finance Act 2020, applicability

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

assessee had initially filed return of income showing agricultural income of Rs.15 lakhs. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the claim of agricultural income was enhanced to Rs.2.81crores (which was 1872% higher). The A.O. did not apply his mind to this aspect

Anand Sheshrao Bharose, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 275/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.275/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

could not have been made before the AO for the first time during the course of re-assessment proceedings otherwise than through filing a revised return. This, in his opinion, ran contrary to the 4 Anandrao Sheshrao Bharose judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz ... supra). Clearly, the ratio of this decision is that the AO has no power to entertain a claim made otherwise than by way of revised return. However, it is worth mentioning that in this judgment itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of the appellate authorities

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

Rs.3,85,54,219/-. Consequent to the statement given during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee had filed revised return of A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 21-03-2013 declaring a total income of Rs.4,50,39,787/- wherein the assessee had withdrawn ... file return of income, as income escaped assessment. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed letter stating that the revised return of income filed on 21-03-2013 should be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 6. Subsequently, after

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

Rs.3,85,54,219/-. Consequent to the statement given during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee had filed revised return of A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 21-03-2013 declaring a total income of Rs.4,50,39,787/- wherein the assessee had withdrawn ... file return of income, as income escaped assessment. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed letter stating that the revised return of income filed on 21-03-2013 should be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 6. Subsequently, after

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

been declined by the AO on the ground that since this claim has not been lodged by the assessee company by way of filing revised return the same is not admissible. However, Ld. CIT(A) has declined to decide this issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground ... merits having been declined by the AO on the ground that this claim was not raised by the assessee by way of filing revised return. So we set aside this issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in view of the findings returned by co-ordinate Bench

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

been declined by the AO on the ground that since this claim has not been lodged by the assessee company by way of filing revised return the same is not admissible. However, Ld. CIT(A) has declined to decide this issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground ... merits having been declined by the AO on the ground that this claim was not raised by the assessee by way of filing revised return. So we set aside this issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in view of the findings returned by co-ordinate Bench

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

been declined by the AO on the ground that since this claim has not been lodged by the assessee company by way of filing revised return the same is not admissible. However, Ld. CIT(A) has declined to decide this issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground ... merits having been declined by the AO on the ground that this claim was not raised by the assessee by way of filing revised return. So we set aside this issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh in view of the findings returned by co-ordinate Bench

Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(2)(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 6832/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(13)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271

income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/- was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2013 claiming TDS of Rs. 381,22,30,714/- and a revised return claiming the same income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/-, claiming the TDS of Rs. 392,67,91,700/- was filed on 31/03/2105

Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7257/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(13)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271

income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/- was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2013 claiming TDS of Rs. 381,22,30,714/- and a revised return claiming the same income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/-, claiming the TDS of Rs. 392,67,91,700/- was filed on 31/03/2105

Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1135/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(13)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271

income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/- was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2013 claiming TDS of Rs. 381,22,30,714/- and a revised return claiming the same income of Rs. 204,90,61,907/-, claiming the TDS of Rs. 392,67,91,700/- was filed on 31/03/2105

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

Book profits u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs. 200,04,14,975/-. Subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 14.02.2017 with a total income of Rs. 166,59,29,350/- under the normal provisions and computed the book profits u/s 115JB ... Whereas the assessee has explained that the revised return of income was filed in order to rectify the mistake in claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act at the lesser amount than the actual allow ability. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice

Atnk&K Area Armed Force S Veterans Canteen (Goldan Palm Cateen), Palakkad vs. The ITO, Palakkad

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

ITA 98/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuatnk & K Area Armed Forces The Income Tax Officer Veterans Canteen Ward - Tds 17/727, Vazhakkadavu Road Vs. Palakkad Manapulikkavu Plakkad 678013 Pan – Aaofa0079R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 234E

mistake. While passing the order u/ s 200A,a late fee of Rs.47,000/, was levied on your appellant adopting the date of filing revised return as the date of filing the original return. The first appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre ... Veterans Canteen authorities had not considered the original quarterly TDS return filed in Form 24Q and it has been considered from the date of revised return and imposed interest and late fee for delayed filing and payment. The learned A.R. of the assessee was unable to produce before

Muthusamy Madhanagopal, Coimbatore vs. The PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 142/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 142/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Mr. Muthusamy Madhanagopal, The Principal Commissioner Of 2/12, Indhu Nagar, Vilankurichi, Vs. Income Tax-1, Coimbatore 641 035. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ahtpm0258Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore, Dated 25.02.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 7 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The Delay Of Seven Days In Filing Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 69A

r.w.s. 147 of the Act to the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his revised return of income on 19.04.2018 admitting a taxable income of ₹.12,63,999/-, which includes assessee’s share of income admitted under the head ‘capital gain

DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. M/S Silvertoss Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that