← 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

M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek, CAFor Respondent: Karkihalli, CIT-DR) &
Section 115JSection 158ASection 37

company and filed its return of income for year under consideration on 28.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.2,26,25,31,801/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed declaring current year loss of Rs.5,85,52,56,897/-. Book profits of the assessee for the year under consideration was shown

DCIT, Muradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5121/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Vs. Jcit, (Earlier Known As M/S. Range-1, Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd.), Moradabad Plot No. 1A, Sectore-16A, Noida Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Jubilant Moradabad Life Sciences Ltd.), Gajraula, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent)

impugned assessment year. While confirming the addition, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessee did not claim the deduction by way of a revised return of income. Thus, according to him, the Assessing Officer could not have entertained assessee’s claim. Accordingly, he upheld the decision of the Assessing ... claim of the assessee. It is evident, the reason for disallowing assessee’s claim is, it was not made through a revised return of income. As we find, identical issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case in assessment years

Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4773/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Vs. Jcit, (Earlier Known As M/S. Range-1, Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd.), Moradabad Plot No. 1A, Sectore-16A, Noida Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jubilant Pharmova Ltd. Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Jubilant Moradabad Life Sciences Ltd.), Gajraula, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aabcv0200H (Appellant) (Respondent)

impugned assessment year. While confirming the addition, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessee did not claim the deduction by way of a revised return of income. Thus, according to him, the Assessing Officer could not have entertained assessee’s claim. Accordingly, he upheld the decision of the Assessing ... claim of the assessee. It is evident, the reason for disallowing assessee’s claim is, it was not made through a revised return of income. As we find, identical issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case in assessment years

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

activity and appellant was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. 3.2 In response to this notice, Appellant had submitted to treat the revised return on 21/09/2009 as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. Objections of the appellant also dealt with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

activity and appellant was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. 3.2 In response to this notice, Appellant had submitted to treat the revised return on 21/09/2009 as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. Objections of the appellant also dealt with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 147

activity and appellant was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. 3.2 In response to this notice, Appellant had submitted to treat the revised return on 21/09/2009 as the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. Objections of the appellant also dealt with

The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Kakinada vs. Smt. Bikkina Savitri Devi, Samalkot

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 584/VIZ/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.584/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Bikkina Savitri Devi, (International Taxation), Samalkota. Kakinada. Pan: Btspb 9625 A (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Hari Prasad प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri K. Hari PrasadFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

income. In response the assessee has e-filed return of income on 26/03/2016 admitting total income at Rs. 71,041/- and again filed a revised return of income on the same day revising the income returned at Rs. 2,71,790/-. Statutory notices U/s. 142(1) was issued

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

However, learned DRP rejected the claim stating that new claim can be made only by way of filing revised return of income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323). The Learned AR submitted that the claim put forth

Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3083/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80I

been admitted that the claim was inadvertently not made in the original ROI. It is also stated that the time to find revised return could be e-filed. It has been argued that the claim being genuine should have been allowed by the AO. To support its contentions the appellant ... date for filing revised ROI was already over. Hence, it was not possible for the AO to advice the appellant to file a revised return u/s. 139(5) to stake a claim of deduction. Considering the totality of facts, and the law laid down in this regard, the reliance placed

Shiv Kumar Sharma, Gzbd vs. Ward 2(2)(3), Gzbd

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Assessment Year : 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194LSection 254

time the revised Form 26AS which was updated on 1st July 2019, was received by the assessee, the time for filing the revised return had expired (the last date for filing the revised return of income was 31.03.2019). He submitted that before CIT(A), assessee pleaded that on the basis ... revised Form 26AS was stated to have been received by the assessee in July, 2019 by which time the due date for filing the revised return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 139(4) of the Act had expired (the last date for filing the revised return of income

Smt. Premalatha Pagaria, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1800/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 264

appeal holding that the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant did not resort to filing the Revised Return of Income though she had time to do so. 6. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the reasons adduced ... claimed in the return of income at the appellate stage which was not permissible in law. She noted that the assessee has not filed revised return of income by making necessary corrections. 7. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) held that the appeal is not maintainable on both the counts. Against this

Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal 252 ITR 009 (SC) held that when the assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely

Adient India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 512/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

carefully considered the facts of the case and law apparent from records. The assessee has e-filed original return of income on 07.10.2010 thereafter, revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.03.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.46,68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42

Vijaysingh J Jadhavrao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(5), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2245/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80I

Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it is held that the claim made by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return is not allowable, however the Assessing Officer has 4 Shri Vijaysingh Jaysingh Jadhavrao proceeded to the examine the claim of deduction u/s 80IB ... that an assessee can very well be allowed to raise a afresh deduction claim in appellate proceedings as well without filing a revised return. He invited out attention to their lordships ratio that the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities under the provision of the Act qua an additional ground

Adient India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1507/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

carefully considered the facts of the case and law apparent from records. The assessee has e-filed original return of income on 07.10.2010 thereafter, revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.03.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.46,68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42

Adient India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7, Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1506/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

carefully considered the facts of the case and law apparent from records. The assessee has e-filed original return of income on 07.10.2010 thereafter, revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.03.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.46,68,06,960/- and income of Rs.42

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

preposition that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear to restrict to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise ... revised return and further held that the decision did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal. 8 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 6.4 By referring to the various case law including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

preposition that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear to restrict to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise ... revised return and further held that the decision did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal. 8 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 6.4 By referring to the various case law including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

Sri Lakshmi and Brothers Media Events, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Madurai

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

ITA 1383/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1383/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 15 M/S. Sri Lakshmi & Brothers The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Media Events, No.21, ‘Lakshmi’, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 3, Sathya Sai Nagar, Madurai. Madurai – 625 003. [Pan:Aaxfs1386G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri. Nsr Ganesh Babu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai Dated 19.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 25.11.2014 Admitting An Income Of ₹.72,321,810/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. After

For Appellant: Shri. NSR Ganesh Babu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

power to adjudicate a claim, which was not made in the original return of income filed by the assessee or filed any revised return of income before conclusion of assessment, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) 6 I.T.A. No.1383/Chny/19 on this issue

Bhuvaneshwar Mohan Hamir Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-26(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2042/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhuvneshwar Mohan Vs. Ito – Ward 26(1)(2) Hamir Chand Jain 6Th Floor, Kautilya 202, Abhinandan Bhavan, Kbc, Bandra Swami Co-Op Hsg (E), Mumbai – 400051. Sec 21, Swami Vallabhdas Road, Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 Pan/Gir No. : Aahpj7718H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfsc), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 54

return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 27.01.2014 with total income of Rs. 14,08,570/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the revised return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 16.09.2014 with the Bhuvneshwar Mohan Hamir Chand Jain, Mumbai. same income withdrawing the deduction claimed