“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

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 309/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh & Assessment Year-2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

declaration of Rs. 5.00 crores made at time of statement filed u/s 132(4) as mentioned in para 2 supra, the assessee filed its revise return on 27. 12.2011 declaring additional income of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-. 7. The assessment order passed for the A. Y. 2008-09 under ... analysis of the seized material and verification of books of accounts, the assessee was confronted on the above issues. The assessee had filed the revised return only on 27-12-2011, when the assessment proceedings were on the verge of finalization. Hence, the disclosure of incomes on above- mentioned issues

Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1158/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 37Section 68

Shekhar Agarwal surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 31 Cr. in F.Y 2012-13 and Rs. 15.91 Cr. in F.Y 2014-15. 2. In revised return filed on 30.08.2016 assessee increased an amount of Rs. 2.6 Cr. in A.Y 2013-14 and Rs. 28.40 Cr. in A.Y 2014-15 on account

Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1157/DEL/2019[201`3-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019

Section 37Section 68

Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1156/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2013-14

Section 37Section 68

Ajay Varma Nagaraju, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Ajay Varma Nagaraju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 12(3), Hyderabad Pan – Abvpn2157K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Phani Raju Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Phani Raju

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

when the assessee asked to provide the reasons for reopening, the AO denied the same on the ground that the assessee has not furnished revised return of income against the issue of notice u/s 148, whereas, the assessee states that he has informed through his letter that the return

Smt. Sunitha Sharma, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1142/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR

Section 50CSection 68Section 69

assessee also submitted that the vendors have admitted to the payment only on account of application of Section 50C and they have also filed revised returns of income, applying the said provision and only to safeguard their interest and avoid levy of penalty etc. Therefore, according to him, the addition

Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1141/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 276C

cash was contributed to him by all of them to enable him to settle his matters. It was also submitted that they filed revised returns, sharing the capital gains as per the value of the property, after including the expenses of stamp duty and registration etc. 3.1. Taking the above ... assessee also submitted that the vendors have admitted to the payment only on account of application of Section 50C and they have also filed revised returns of income, :- 9 -: ITA. Nos. 1141/Hyd/2012 1132/Hyd/2012 applying the said provision and only to safeguard their interest and avoid levy of penalty etc. Therefore

Smt. Rashmi Sharma, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1140/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR

Section 50CSection 68Section 69

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1139/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR

Section 153CSection 68Section 69

1139/Hyd/2012 also submitted that the vendors have admitted to the payment only on account of application of Section 50C and they have also filed revised returns of income, applying the said provision and only to safeguard their interest and avoid levy of penalty etc. Therefore, according to him, the addition

Kalim Munit Khan, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)26, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of A.O of levying the above penalty of Rs. 2,04,8557- by reopening the assessment though the revised return disclosing the alleged undisclosed income was filed physically along with letter at the time when the assessment for A.Y 2010-11 was going ... though the assurance was given by the A.O to the appellant of not re-opening the assessment if the revised return is filed. 2 Mr. Kalim Munir Khan 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O of levying the above penalty

ACIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Citizen Credit Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6012/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6012/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthkiyenFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Shri

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P(4)

initially AO and Ld. CIT(A) in the first round of litigation had disallowed the claim of the assessee on the premise that no revised return was filed by the assessee. Whereas assessee had explained by submitting 5 I.T.A. No. 6012/Mum/2017 M/s Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd. detailed computation

Nadathur Estates Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT(DR)

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

that the assessee is an investment company and filed the Return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 30/09/2011 and also filed revised return of income on 21/12/2011 disclosing total income of Rs.7,71,44,290/-. The Return of income was processed

Nadathur Estates Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 267/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT(DR)

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

Shri Pintu, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3523/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Pintu, Vs Ito, B-208, Gali No.1, Ward-60(4), Rajveer Colony, Gharoli Extension, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Arvpp5359D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th May, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Taking The Contracts For Parking Slots Mainly In Connaught Place Area. These Contracts Were Taken From Ndmc & Were Subjected To Tcs. In The Preceding Assessment Years, The Assessee Used To Declare His Income On Presumptive Basis & No Books Of Account Were Maintained. For The Impugned Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed The Original Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,01,260/-. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 30Th September, 2012 Declaring The Same Income. This Return Was Again Revised On 14Th January, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.4,64,120/-. In Response To Notice U/S 143(2)/142(1), The Assessee Filed Various Details As Asked For By The Assessing Officer From Time To Time. However, Books Of Accounts Were Never Produced Despite Being Given Adequate Opportunities.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

assessee, in the original return has shown gross receipts of Rs.4,36,60,256/- and declared net profit of Rs.4,01,260/-. In the revised return, the gross receipt was declared at Rs.3,87,90,014/- and the profit determined was Rs.5,50,120/-. The Assessing Officer examined the various ... expenditure debited in the Profit & Loss Account and various items in the balance sheet as per the original return as well as the revised return and found substantial discrepancies in the figures of sales as well as in the figures of other expenses. He, therefore, asked the assessee to substantiate

Eastern Engineering Venture, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)

person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section; or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

M/S Agnus Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl CIT

Section 14A

However, the AO did not consider the same. Normally the mistakes committed in filing return of income are to be corrected only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323). However, the Hon’ble Supreme

Tidewater Marine International Inc., Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

ITA 4041/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 4041/Del/2016 ( A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44D

total income of Rs. 4,78,04,550/- as against income of Rs. 1,85,81,544/- shown in the revised return of income. The assessee did not file objections against the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ... total income of Rs. 2,43,34,390/- as against income of Rs. 1,72,99,395/- shown in the revised return of income. The assessee did not file objections against the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Assessment order was passed under Section 143(3)/144C

M/S. Varsha Forgings Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.09/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Varsha Forgings Ltd., 294, Sindh Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Ganeshkhind Road, Aundh, Pune-411007. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaacv9485B …. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & In Law, 1) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That, A. The Appellant Had Filed The Revised Return Of Income. B. The Appellant Offered To Tax The Alleged Purchases By Filing The Revised Return As The Party From Whom The Purchases Were Made Was Absconding & Not Traceable. C. The Appellant Did Produce All Relevant Documentary Evidences Supporting Purchases, Receipt Of Goods, Payments, Address Of The Party, Pan Etc. D. The Purchases Were Very Negligible & Form 0.004 % Of Total Purchases Made During The Year. E. The Quantum Involved Being Very Meagre The Appellant Filed Revised Return By Offering Additional Income.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai

Section 148Section 203Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the penalty order. 2) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that, a. The appellant had filed the revised return of Income. b. The appellant offered to tax the alleged purchases by filing the revised return as the party from whom the purchases were made ... purchases were very negligible and form 0.004 % of total purchases made during the year. e. The quantum involved being very meagre the appellant filed revised return by offering additional income. 2 f. Income Tax Departments in other cases of such alleged purchases accepted the income offered by the assessee

Shri Shaileshbhai V. Mangukia, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 457/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Mangukia v. ITO Wd-3(1)(2) Surat /I.T.A. No.457/AHD/2017/A.Y.10-11 Page 2 of 6 section 148, dated 22. 05. 2013. The assessee has filed revised return of income, without changing income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. We have heard the rival submissions and find that

The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Dahej Sez Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1046/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri M.S. A Khan, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R

final accounts audited by statutory auditor appointed by C & A G. on mercantile basis by stating that assessee has not claimed by filling revised return of income. But ld. A.O. was not agreed with the contention of the assessee and made total addition of Rs. 35498220/-. 4. Against the said ... income on FDRs on accrual basis, whereas the expenses claimed are not allowed on the ground that the same are not claimed by filing revised return and hence they are not ascertained liabilities and not crystallized during the year under consideration. Assessee’s contention is that revised return could