“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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.

109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

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 Gogga Gurushanthiah & Bros., Hospet vs. ACIT, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, IRS (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

declared during the Survey and admitted in the Return of Income for the AY: 2007-08. The Assessee had in the revised return of income filed for AY 2008-09 set off the sum of Rs.1,55,35,136 and the additional income of Rs.2 ... found at the time of survey was included in the statement of income and the value was not in the closing stock. In the revised return of income filed, the value the value of stock declared during the time of survey was set off against the income. In other words

M/S. Jaykamal Finance and Securities P. Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1464/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1464/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Jaykamal Finance & Securities Private Limited. P.C Patil & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Survey No. 148/1/2, Plot No.10, 1St Floor, “Swaraj Building”, Kalamkar Park, Near Jupiter Hospital, Baner-411 045. Pan : Aaacj8748H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Malakar

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has clearly disclosed loss of current year carried forward at Rs.33,69,239/-. The Ld. AR submitted that non filing of revised return cannot be a ground for imposing penalty since all the particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee. The 3 A.Y.2010-11 Department is only building ... case on hypothetical premises that since no revised return was filed by the assessee, the intention therefore, was to conceal the income. In this case penalty is levied for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” which as facts demonstrated, is nowhere applicable to the case of the assessee. 6. Per contra

Labh Construction & Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 2010/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1926 & 1745/Ahd/2014 & 2010/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2002-03& 2003-04) Ito Labh Construction बनाम/ &Industries Ltd. Ward-4(3), Vs. 104-Shantanu, Opp. Ahmedabad Hotel Klassic Gold, Sardar Patel Nagar, E.B., Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaa Cl2 648 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: 15/07/2019

Section 143(3)

assessee’s claim of bad debts of Rs.55,99,506/- accepting the assessee's submission that the amount was offered while filing the revised return when no such claim was made by the assessee in the first appellate stage and the assessee also failed to produce any evidence of filing ... revised return. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of Rs.4,69,735/- being capital expenditure as certified by the auditor, accepting the assessee's submission that the expenditure is revenue in nature

The ITO, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad vs. Labh Construction & Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 1926/AHD/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: 15/07/2019

Section 143(3)

Labh Construction & Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 1745/AHD/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: 15/07/2019

Section 143(3)

Adity Dalmiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Aditya Dalmiya Vs Ito-17(1)(1), Mumbai 36, 5Th Floor, Vishnu Mahal D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aclpd1591Q Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 3

Income for AY 2009-10 on 27-01-2010 declaring income from salary and other sources of Rs.3,32,493. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 24-02-2014 declaring total income of Rs.9,52,640. The revised return was time barred; hence no cognizance was taken. The assessing

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1258/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139

correct in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of set off of the losses claimed by assessee without filing revised return ignoring the ratio decidendi of the case of Goetze India Ltd. that the assessee cannot claim for deduction otherwise by filing a revised return.” 3. Facts ... case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 223] and held that the deduction could not be made without a valid revised return. Since in the instant case the return has not been revised within the meaning of section 139 (5) of the IT Act, 1961 therefore, he rejected

Bloomfield Properties & Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 7417/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri U.N. Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

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

expenses which were not allowable. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are dismissed for the reason that the Assessee did not file revised return of income within the statutory limit provided u/s 139 of the Act. The Assessee only furnished revised computation of income on the issue

Moly Metal Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 176/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

name of Moly Metal P/t. Ltd. (formerly known as Electro Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.) declaring Total Income of Rs. 1,66.39,094/-. The revised Return of 3 . A.Y. 2014-15 Income was filed by the assessee company on 10.09.2015 declaring Total Income

Income Tax Officer (It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Semine Fazalbhoy, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2111/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito (It)-2(3)(1) बिधम/ Semine Fazalbhoy 17Th Floor, Room No.1727, Vs. Flat No.9, Kamal Mahal, Air India Building, Nariman Charmichael Road, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021. 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpf6321L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Dr. Narender Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Sanghavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -56, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.77,38,27,120/- for the A.Y.2014-15. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 24.12.2015 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.77,38,27,120/-. The return was processed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

finance to customers for personal loans and mortgage, i.e., home loan and home equity. 1.2 For the relevant assessment year, the Assessee filed its revised return declaring the loss of Rs 2,35,49,26,843. However, the assessing officer assessed the total income of the Assessee at loss

DE vs. Hibhai Desai, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.92/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Devshibhai Desai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 26-27, Amardeep Society, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat. Nana Varachha Road, Surat – 395 006. [Pan: Agvpd 7362 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul R Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri S.R.Meena – Sr.Dr

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed the Return of Income showing capital gain and claimed deduction u/s.54F and 54B against same. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return showing ‘Nil’ capital gain claiming that the sold by him is agricultural land exempt from development of capital asset u/s.2

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

post-search assessments. Considering that the non- obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions ... furnished under section 139. 13. Therefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned provision is that once the assessee files a revised return under Section 153A, for all other provisions of the Act, the revised return will be treated as the original return filed under Section 139. On similar

Suresh B Desai, Surat vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1720/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

M/S. Vraj Developers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 2620/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Respondent: Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 80I

Usha International Ltd. says that when the assessee is cornered by the evidence or material collected by the Revenue Authorities, even by filing by revised return assessee can gain nothing from it and he is liable for penal provisions u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, different

M/S. Vraj Corporation, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessees are dismissed

ITA 2619/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Respondent: Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 133ASection 80I

Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 304/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. Cit, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acaps0740F Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

mismatch between TDS claimed by the assessee and data available at 26AS. In compliance u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed revised return of income at 4 Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Rs.10,22,892/-. Additions were made by Ld. A.O but he failed to initiate penalty proceedings

Deepak C. Desai, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3143/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

assessee immediately filed a letter before the income tax Department expressing its intention to offer the interest income by filing the revised returns of income and ultimately the assessee paid tax on such income in the year 2011 and an affidavit to that effect was also filed before the income ... authorities. He submitted, the revised returns of income filed by the assessee in pursuance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act were ultimately accepted. He submitted, though on identical reasoning, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment year

Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7243/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

However the AO refused to acknowledge the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the claim was made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. The AO observed that as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

hand for filing return of income within 30 days. However, assessee filed its return on 11.09.2013 beyond the time limit to file revised return and therefore issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act shall not arise. Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision