← 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

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

opted for such scheme and transferred 9123 shares for a consideration of Rs. 4,74,39,600/-. In the revised return, the assessee claimed that capital gains arising on transfer of those 9123 shares be treated as long term capital gains. The long term capital gains on transfer of those

Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7039/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Dr. Kailash P. Gaikwad
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

engaged in the business of manufacturing of organic /inorganic chemicals and intermediates,filed its return on 30.09.09 declaring total income at Rs.79.54 crores .A revised return was filed on 29/07/2010,declaring total income at Rs.78.36 crores.The AO completed assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining its income at Rs.95.21 crores

Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2256/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Divyesh Shah & Amit ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

prove that the AO had ever called for details of provision for doubtful debts, that the AO had simply accepted the income as per revised return under normal provisions as well as u/s.115 JB, that the AO had dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee about reopening ... material facts.” We find that the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil, that later a revised return was filed, that the book profit was computed at Rs. 4.02 crore and the assessee paid taxes accordingly, that the after completion of regular assessment u/s.143

Mr. Durai Sathyamurthy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3028/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)

notices were issued by the AO u/s.143(2) and during the pendency of scrutiny the AO conducted survey u/s.133A. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2014 revising the total income to Rs.52,66,950/-. During the survey, it was noticed by the AO that ... following additional grounds of appeal: a. The Lower Authorities erred in not considering the claim of carry forward capital loss stated in the revised return filed by the assessee before the AO. The AO has not even mentioned the filing of the revised return in the Assessment Order passed

Dr. Prathima Venkatachalam, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2612/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2612/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dr. Prathima Venkatachalam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O Revathi S. Raghunathan, Vs. International Taxation 2(1), Chartered Accountant, Flat No. 32, Chennai. G Block, Re Classic Apartments, 68, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. [ Pan: Aqkpp 4278K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

gains and other income and filed the Return of income on 17.06.2009 with total income of Rs. 3,66,49,000/-. Subsequently, assessee filed Revised Return of income on 27.05.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 3,04,480/- in which the assessee has claimed exemption ... process of acquiring property takes place minimum 3 to 4 months and finally the Residential property was purchased on 13.10.2009 and assessee filed Revised Return on 27.05.2010 disclosing the fact of acquisition of property at UK and claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Whereas, the Assessing Officer

Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 883/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of revised return which is against the interest of revenue." 3. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of Insecticides ... Assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.28,91,20,688/- on 16.9.2010. The Assessee thereafter filed a revised return of income on 22.2.2012 declaring total income of Rs.25,28,24,247/-. The reasons for filing the revised return of income was explained by the Assessee

M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. Subsequently the 2 M/s Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. assessee company filed its revised return of income on 9-12-2008 showing total loss at Rs.3,19,09,797/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1018/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.D.Verma, Advocate and Shri Sanjeev Kadel, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 139(5)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of revised return which is against the interest of revenue." 3. The Assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of Insecticides ... Assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.28,91,20,688/- on 16.9.2010. The Assessee thereafter filed a revised return of income on 22.2.2012 declaring total income of Rs.25,28,24,247/-. The reasons for filing the revised return of income was explained by the Assessee

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5073/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

outs were made to the assessee whereas the bank had been deducting TDS on the accrued interest. The assessee, when realized, immediately filed revised returns on 19/08/2011, declaring interest income on FDs before an investigation is made by the department as is evident from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer ... issuing notice u/s.148. It is also noted that the reasons were recorded on the basis of revise return filed by the assessee. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c ) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on the plea that the returns were belated as the same were beyond the time permissible u/s.139

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5072/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

outs were made to the assessee whereas the bank had been deducting TDS on the accrued interest. The assessee, when realized, immediately filed revised returns on 19/08/2011, declaring interest income on FDs before an investigation is made by the department as is evident from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer ... issuing notice u/s.148. It is also noted that the reasons were recorded on the basis of revise return filed by the assessee. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c ) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on the plea that the returns were belated as the same were beyond the time permissible u/s.139

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5071/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

outs were made to the assessee whereas the bank had been deducting TDS on the accrued interest. The assessee, when realized, immediately filed revised returns on 19/08/2011, declaring interest income on FDs before an investigation is made by the department as is evident from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer ... issuing notice u/s.148. It is also noted that the reasons were recorded on the basis of revise return filed by the assessee. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c ) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on the plea that the returns were belated as the same were beyond the time permissible u/s.139

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5070/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

outs were made to the assessee whereas the bank had been deducting TDS on the accrued interest. The assessee, when realized, immediately filed revised returns on 19/08/2011, declaring interest income on FDs before an investigation is made by the department as is evident from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer ... issuing notice u/s.148. It is also noted that the reasons were recorded on the basis of revise return filed by the assessee. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c ) was imposed by the Assessing Officer on the plea that the returns were belated as the same were beyond the time permissible u/s.139

Priti Nimish Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-25, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3069/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati Deshmukh-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 24Section 254(1)

year under consideration.She filed her return on 16/01/2013, declaring total income at Rs. 21.48 lakhs.Later on, on 27/02/2013, the assessee filed a revised return disclosing income of Rs. 15.89 lakhs.The assessee had offered income of Rs. 26,40,000/-was offered under the head income from house property, whereas

Mukta Arts Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT., 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6048/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष M/S Mukta Arts Limited Asstt.Commissionr Of Income फनधभ/ 3Rd Floor, Filmcity Complex, Tax 11(1), Goregaon(E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400065 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacm9513F (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Rahul K Hakani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri Suman Kumar सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.1.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 7.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.6.2011 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2008- 09 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs.35,07,280/- As Made By The Ao Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2 2. Earlier, The Appeal Was Dismissed In Limine For Non-Prosecution By The Tribunal On 26.11.2012. Thereafter, Vide Ma No.142/Mum/2013 The Assessee Prayed For Restoration Of Original Appeal & The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 11.10.2013 Passed In Miscellaneous Application Restored The Appeal For Fresh Hearing. Hence, This Is A Second Inning Of The Litigant Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

case are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.3,67,88,592/- and revised return of income on 23.3.2009 declaring the same income revising the TDS claim only. The return was processed under section 143(1) and thereafter the case

Govindarajan Ramasamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2551/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

case that the assessee is a non-resident and filed Return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 20.12.2013. Subsequently, filed Revised return of income on 13.05.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 1,00,800/-, whereas at the time of filing the original return of income the residential ... Chief Engineer and in the financial year2012-13, the assessee was non-resident and received salary in US Dollars. Further, in the Revised Return of income :-3-: I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 assessee disclosed sale of property and investment in residential property and further claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Subsequently

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Birla Sunlife Insurance R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Company Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Rd One India Bulls Centre Tower Mumbai Vs. 1 16Th Floor, Jupiter, Mills Compound 841 S.B. Marg Elpinston Rd, Mumbai-400013 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aabcb4623J .. Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr Revenue By Assessee By .. Shri Ronak G. Doshi, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 06-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 06 -03-2017

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 44

expenses incurred on exempt income amounting to Rs. 5,66,01,757/- was not included. Thereafter, the assessee had field revised return of income declaring loss of Rs. 507,82,11,372/- on 29 March 2012 wherein the assessee added back the loss from pension fund amounting ... computing the surplus/ (deficit) from the insurance business under section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule. Subsequently, the Appellant had filed revised return of income wherein it claimed the loss arising from the pension business amounting to Rs 26,16,32,515/-. 1.7 In this regard

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Heavy Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2816/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

income. The book profit u/s. 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was also shown at NIL. The revised return of income was filed on 27.05.1991. However, in this return also the income under the normal provisions as well as book profit u/s. 115J

Kesoram Industries Limited (Sucessor of Hindusthan Heavy Chemicals Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2815/KOL/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

income. The book profit u/s. 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was also shown at NIL. The revised return of income was filed on 27.05.1991. However, in this return also the income under the normal provisions as well as book profit u/s. 115J

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sangeeta Mishra

ITA/423/2004HC Delhi03 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 68

proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB

ACIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 418/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao,Am & Shri Ravish Sood,Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07 Maharashtra State Power The Asst. Comm Of Income-Tax, Generation Co.Ltd. Circle 10(1), Plot No. G-9 Prakashgad,2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Vs. M.K Road, Station Rd, Bandra(E) Mumbai- 400 02O Mumbai-400051. (Pan: Aaecm2935R) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst.Comm Of Income-Tax, Maharashtra State Power Circle 10(1), Generation Co.Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-19 Prakashganga, M.K Road, Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Mumbai- 400 02O Rd, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaecm2935R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri S.E.Dastur & Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 43B

admitting the additional evidences without appreciating that the appropriate and sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the reduction of income in revised return, which the assessee failed to explain and prove. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of prior period expenses made in the revised return by the assessee company without appreciating that the said expenses pertained to the period prior to existence of the assessee company and hence were