← 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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
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
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

Jayashree S, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1127/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Jayashree S, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.147, 30Th Cross, Income Tax (Cpc), Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Income Tax Office, Bangalore-560 070. Ward – 7(2)(4), Pan : Aakpj 2584 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S. R., Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Of Cit(A)-7, Bangalore, Dated 24.04.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Impugned Intimation Being Bad In Law Without Jurisdiction & Not In Accordance With Any Of The Provision Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case & Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay For Filing Of Appeal & Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Holding That The Delay Is Nothing But Negligence & Inaction Of The Appellant & There Exists No Sufficient Or Good Reason For Condoning The Delay. On Proper Appreciation Of Facts & The Law Applicable, The Appellant Was Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Karuppusamy S. R., Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234A

return of income. On receipt thereof, the assessee filed a rectification application on 03.01.2017 which was rejected on 20.02.2007. The assessee also filed a revised return of income on 08.03.2017. In the above factual scenario, it is very unlikely that the assessee would have deliberately or intentionally filed the appeal