“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

Mohit Gupta, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 5502/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

case, Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the income assessed at Rs.27,07,267/- as against revised returned income of Rs. 14,98,384/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts ... confirming the action of the AO by not giving effect to the revised return filed by the assessee declaring income of Rs. 14,98,384/- despite the fact that the revised return was in time and permissible under section 139(5) of the Act. 4(i)On the facts

M/S. Goldex Furnishing Industries, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1.70 crores. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC and 80IB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.1.58 crores. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 27.03.2009 after getting the approval of Competent Authority ... submitted that in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, assessee filed letter dated 07.04.2009 whereby A.O. was informed that revised return filed under section 139(5) dated 26.12.2002 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 317/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)

Section 194CSection 198Section 40

addition of Rs.2,42,57,570/- on account of depreciation ignoring the fact that the assessee can revise its income only by filing revised return of income. 5. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to accept the revised computation filed ... back Rs.11,96,948/- on account of loss on sale of ignoring the fact that the assessee can revise its income only by filing revised return of income. 6. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.23,54,235/- on account

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 314/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)

Section 194CSection 198Section 40

Kavvdapu Buchi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 552/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blekavvadapu Buchi Reddy, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(4), H.No. 12-142/1, P & T Colony, Hyderabad. Kamalanagar Colony, Hyderabad Pan No. Aocpk 6892 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Niju Gupta– DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 44ASection 45A

appellant has no option to file a income lower than the income originally assessed. Therefore, the finding of the Assessing Officer that the revised return of income filed by the appellant is non-est is legally correct. On merits also, the appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Hotel Sahaj Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3101/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri, Ashwin Shah & Bhadresh

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

system failure, the e-return under Section 148 could not be submitted. However, the statement of income in pursuance to Section 148 named as "Revised Return" is submitted. It is made very clear to the AO that because of system failure the income tax return under Section 148 could ... submitted. However the revised return with revised statement of income was submitted. The return submitted though stated as revised but it is in effect the return in response to notice under Section 148. In response of this, it was AO's duty to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1417/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Sparc, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vadodara – 390 020. Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [Pan No. Aadcs 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 35

claimed the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in the books of accounts. Moreover, the assessee should have filed the revised return of income for claiming the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, but the assessee has not done so. Thus the AO disallowed ... provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the Act. Merely because the same was not claimed in the return of income nor through a revised return of income, the same cannot be denied. The relevant portion of Section 35(2AB) reads as under:- 35[2AB] (1) where a company engaged

DCIT RG (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Lok Housing & Construction Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are allowed and assessee appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 13(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 145(3)Section 80ASection 80I

Housing & Construction Ltd. 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the revised return of income filed by the assessee company on 01.01.2009 as a valid return without appreciating the fact that was no 'omission' or 'wrong statement' in the original ... income filed u/s. 139(1) did not make any claim for deduction u/s. 80IB. Deduction u/s. 80IB was claimed later on by way of revised return. The Assessing Officer while rejecting assessee’s claim u/s. 80IB also referred to the provisions of section 80AC, which provided that deduction such

Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1052/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Vishwakarma Chambers, . Of Income Tax, Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Circle-1, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aacca 0034 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari – CAFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.DR

Section 131

assessee are that assessee company filed return 5. of income on 30.09.2011 showing total income of Rs.21,24,110/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income showing total income at Rs.28,53,420/- wherein commission income of Rs.7,29,304/- was shown, it was not reflected in the original

The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. The Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 938/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Panday, CIT-D.R

Section 35Section 80Section 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

The Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad vs. The Additional CIT, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Panday, CIT-D.R

Section 35Section 80Section 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

The ACIT, (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. The Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1725/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Panday, CIT-D.R

Section 35Section 80Section 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

The Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1634/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Panday, CIT-D.R

Section 35Section 80Section 92C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Shekhavati Investments and Traders Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1663/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1663/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

claimed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, actual disallowance should be assessed as Rs. 26,00,022/-. Since the assessee did not file a revise return for its claim, the claim is rejected following the Supreme court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... light of the materials available on record before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. I agree with the A.O. that since no revised return was filed by the appellant company so the claim cannot be allowed. In view of the above, the order of the A.O. is upheld. This

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Integrated Coal Mining Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Jm ] I.T. A No. 637/Kol/2017 A.Y 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Circle-6(1), Kolkata V/S. M/S. Integrated Coal Mining Ltd Pan: Aaaci5584L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

been utilized by the appellant in making investments, income from which had been considered exempt. It was also clarified that in the revised return filed on 28lh March 2013, the appellant withdrew its claim for exemption and, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A could be made but during the course ... also treated the dividend income of Rs. 31,95,365/ - as exempt although the appellant has offered the same for taxation in the revised return of income. As explained by the appellant in the detailed submission extracted above for ready reference and throwing proper light on the relevant facts

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. Albert David Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. Albert David List P-7,Chowringhee 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacca 3933 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rabin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 30-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 06.12.2016 Passed In Case No.1338/Cit(A)-4/Circle-10(1)/Kol/15-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue Raises Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Allowing 30% Depreciation As Claimed By The Assessee Despite The Fact That The Claim Of The Assessee That It Was Manufacturing Iv Fluid Bottles & Disposable Syringe & Needles With The Help Of Plastics Moulds Identical With The Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Was Not Blocked By Any Materials Or Cogent Explanation? 2. Whether The Learned. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Technically Similar Moulds Used In Rubber & Plastics Goods Factories Were Also

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

year under consideration was originally filed by it on 29.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,54,94,310/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,86,54,770/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide

Organon (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

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

ITA 1335/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 195Section 40

claimed by 6 Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Organon (India) Limited the assessee either in the original return or even in the form of revised return, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee for the said deduction by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme ... entitled to make any fresh claim, which was not made either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing a revised return. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was liable to make good any short-fall in the minimum conversion charges

ITO 20(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Divinity, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 2645/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-20(1)-4, M/S Divinity, R. No. 112, Piramal Chambers, Atlas Mill Cound, P.D. Mello 1St Floor, Parel, Road, Mazgaon, Reay Road, Mumbai - 400031 Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aahfd7084L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Anant N. Pai (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143

loans received from them and not used directly for the construction activity. The Ld. DR further submitted that since, the assessee did not file revised return, the AO has rightly rejected the claim of credit of TDS the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee

M/S. Unilog Content Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 742/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Unilog Content Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No.11, 15Th Cross, 20Th Main, Out Ring Road Jp Nagar 5Th Phase, Bengaluru-560078. … Appellant Pan:Aadcs 3121 N

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 29/11/2014 with the total income of Rs.5,74,74,830 and revised return was filed on 13/02/2015 with the same total income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under sections

M/S Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Inds. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2150/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2150/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)9c) on the ground that the appellant had not come forward suo moto to file revised return. 1.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case was well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the penalty