← 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

Arunashis Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-1(3), Hooghly

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 258/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

were maintained by him. The A.O., therefore, treated the subsequent return filed by the assessee electronically on 26.05.2011 and selected for scrutiny as the revised return of the assessee and proceeded to complete the assessment with reference to the said return. In the assessment so completed under section ... under section 143(3) on the basis of return of income subsequently filed on 26.05.2011 in electronic form by treating the same as the revised return. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the original return of income filed by the assessee on 29.09.2010 against

ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly vs. Shri Arunasia Sarkar, Hooghly

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

were maintained by him. The A.O., therefore, treated the subsequent return filed by the assessee electronically on 26.05.2011 and selected for scrutiny as the revised return of the assessee and proceeded to complete the assessment with reference to the said return. In the assessment so completed under section ... under section 143(3) on the basis of return of income subsequently filed on 26.05.2011 in electronic form by treating the same as the revised return. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the original return of income filed by the assessee on 29.09.2010 against