← 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

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vikunj Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appealed filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Vikunj Enterprises Private 11(3)(3), Room No.429, Vs. Limited, B-1, Neela Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, S.V.Road, Borivali(West), M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Mumbai-400092. 400020. Pan No. Aabcv6166C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Rahul R. Sarda, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’] & Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ground Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Reads As Under: “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Assessee Of Rs.1,28,42,775/- By Considering The Income As Per Revised Return Of Income (Revised Return Filed On 17.02.2015) Which Was Not The Valid Return Of Income As Per Section 139(5) Which States That – If Any Person, Having Furnished A Return Under Sub Section (1), Or In Pursuance Of A Notice Issued Under Sub Section (1) Of Section 142, Discovers Any Omission Or Any Wrong Statement Therein, He May Furnish A Revised Return At Any Time Before The Expiry Of One Year From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Of Before

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul R. Sarda, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

justified in giving relief to the assessee of Rs.1,28,42,775/- by considering the income as per revised Return of Income (revised return filed on 17.02.2015) which was not the valid return of income as per section 139(5) which states that – if any person, having furnished a return ... pursuance of a notice issued under sub section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year of before Vikunj Enterprises

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

interference. The DRP also observed that assessee had ample opportunities to claim the deduction in the original return as well as in the revised return, but, the assessee, at no point of time, made any effort in the direction. 31. The Assessing Officer observed that the Ld. DRP also found ... such claims suo-motto. As per the scheme of the Act, the said claim of deduction must have been made in the original or revised return of income which the assessee has failed to comply with. The Ld. DRP went on to say that the said circular of CBDT cannot