← 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

M/S. National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1108/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 154(1)Section 155(14)Section 199(3)

Taxman 1 (SC), rejected the claim holding that no fresh claim can be made other than to the valid revised return of income. The Assessing Officer the original return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made vide application u/s 154 of the Act amounts ... assessee at the time of filing original returns, and, therefore, was not able to claim the TDS. The Ld. AR further submitted that the revised return including the claim of TDS was filed within time. Thus, the applications under Section 154 of the Act should have been allowed

M/S. National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1107/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 154(1)Section 155(14)Section 199(3)

Taxman 1 (SC), rejected the claim holding that no fresh claim can be made other than to the valid revised return of income. The Assessing Officer the original return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made vide application u/s 154 of the Act amounts ... assessee at the time of filing original returns, and, therefore, was not able to claim the TDS. The Ld. AR further submitted that the revised return including the claim of TDS was filed within time. Thus, the applications under Section 154 of the Act should have been allowed

M/S. National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1106/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 154(1)Section 155(14)Section 199(3)

Taxman 1 (SC), rejected the claim holding that no fresh claim can be made other than to the valid revised return of income. The Assessing Officer the original return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made vide application u/s 154 of the Act amounts ... assessee at the time of filing original returns, and, therefore, was not able to claim the TDS. The Ld. AR further submitted that the revised return including the claim of TDS was filed within time. Thus, the applications under Section 154 of the Act should have been allowed

M/S. National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1105/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 154(1)Section 155(14)Section 199(3)

Taxman 1 (SC), rejected the claim holding that no fresh claim can be made other than to the valid revised return of income. The Assessing Officer the original return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made vide application u/s 154 of the Act amounts ... assessee at the time of filing original returns, and, therefore, was not able to claim the TDS. The Ld. AR further submitted that the revised return including the claim of TDS was filed within time. Thus, the applications under Section 154 of the Act should have been allowed

M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6165/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Deputy M/S. Pearl Polymers Ltd., 204, Commissioner Of Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, Income Tax, Circle-14(1), New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacp0182F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/09/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1.0 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant’S Case In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.4.45.076/- U/S.40A(3Ijof The Income-Tax Act, On Wholly Untenable Grounds. 1.1 That The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Circumstances Under Which The Cash Payment Exceeding The Prescribed Limit U/S.40A(3) Had To Be Made By The Assessee, Although The Payees Were Fully Identified & Even Tds Has Been Made. 1.2 That The Disallowance Made U/S.40A(3) Is Bad In Law.

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

bottles and filed return of income for the year under consideration on 26/09/2009 declaring nil income, which was subsequently revised on 29/03/2011. In the revised return, income in respect of the year was declared at Rs.2,36,71,703/-, however, 3 AY: 2009-10 after adjusting brought forward losses, total

ACIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mtnl, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3565/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

showing the income at Rs.165,12,177/-. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 143(2) dated 03.09.2002. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 11.09.2002 declaring an income of Rs.166,20,12,405/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3363/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

showing the income at Rs.165,12,177/-. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 143(2) dated 03.09.2002. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 11.09.2002 declaring an income of Rs.166,20,12,405/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income

Prabhat R. Jhunjhunwala, Mumbai vs. Asst RG 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3800/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 3800/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Prabhat R. Astt. Commissioner Of बिाम/ Jhunjhunwala Income Tax 8, Arab Bunglow, 12Th Khetwadi Lane, Range 16 (1) Vs. Near Balwas Hotel, Mumbai 400 004 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aacpj 3606P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 271(1)

impugned AY declaring total income of Rs.14,14,282/-. The survey operations conducted on assessee revealed suppression of business receipts and consequently, assessee filed revised return at Rs.19,14,280/- after declaring additional sum of Rs.5.00 Lacs as income arising out of unaccounted activities. The assessee claimed unaccounted expenditure

Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6775/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54B

assessee failed to disclose such exempt income in the original return of income filed on 29/09/2008 nor the same was disclosed in the revised return of income filed on 06/12/2010. The A.O. observed that the assessee not only concealed the particulars of income in respect to the capital gains earned ... with the Revenue. The assessee did not include the particulars of capital gains in the original return of income as well as in the revised return of income filed with the Revenue, hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable as the assessee has concealed the particulars

Late Suresh Parekh Through Legal Heir, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6123/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6123/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Suresh Parekh Income Tax Officer Ward -13 (3) (1), 4Th Floor, Through Legal Heir Smt. Bhavna Suresh Parekh (Wife) Aayakar Bhavan, बिाम/ C/O. B. M. Parekh & Co., Mumbai Vs. Chartered Accountants, 3/203, Navjivan Society, Lamington Road, Mumbai 400 008 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aawpp 6687L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Shrikant Namdeo, Dr सुनवाई की िायीख / : 16/11/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की िायीख / : 16 /11/2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Captioned Appeal By Legal Heir Of The Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2010-11 Assails The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 [Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 07/07/2014 On The Following Four Effective Grounds:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Sections 54/54F against LTCG but the same was rejected on the ground that new / additional claims can be made only by way of filing revised return of income and not by way of filing of revised computation of income during assessment proceedings. Thereupon, AO completed the assessment after adding Rs.45 ... that AO has rejected the same on the ground that the same could be available to the assessee only by way of filing of revised return and not otherwise. Therefore, he had no occasion to consider the claim of assessee on merits and therefore, we deem it fit to restore

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 180/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 180/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 West Bengal Housing Development Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Ltd. Circle-11, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaacw4115F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

they have filed return of income on 19.12.2011 declaring total income of Rs.10,81,33,638/-. Subsequently, they filed a revised return of income on 12.03.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.2,54,38,805/- after making deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The order of assessment

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Nous Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 63/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

For Appellant: Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 155Section 72

considering brought forward losses of Rs.13,070,289/- and after claiming deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,590,789/- . 2.1 Thereafter, it filed a revised return on 23 rd March 2009 declaring total income of Rs.65,354,148/- after considering brought forward losses of Rs.12,378,310/- and after claiming ... section 10A of the Act. ITA.63/Bang/2016 Page - 3 2.2 Subsequently, a notice under section 148 dated 26 th March 2014 was issued. In response , revised return of income was filed on 24 April 2014 declaring total income of Rs.65,354,148/- after considering brought forward losses of Rs.12

Cms Ditl Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5278/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221(1)

self assessment tax and hence the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ` 5,45,835/- computed @ 25% self assessment tax payable. The assessee subsequently filed revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Act on 31.3.2010, as per which self assessment tax payable was worked ... Tribunal, passed an ex-parte order dated 31.5.2011 in ITA No. 3035/Mum/2010, wherein the Tribunal has taken note of the fact of filing of revised return of income and hence it restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh, since the learned

Deepak Clifford Menezes, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 494/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 253Section 254(1)

individual filed return of income for relevant assessment year on 27th Nov 2003 declaring total income at Rs.9,04,505/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of ITA No. 494-96/M/2014 Deepak C. Menezes & Prescy Menezes income of Rs.16,11,703/- on 29th of May 2009. In the revised ... subsequent proceedings are invalid and void ab- initio. On merits it was argued by ld AR of the assessee that assessee filed revised return of income on 29th may 2009 revising income to Rs. 16,11,703/-. The assessee not only offered the income which was not offered

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 3432/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri. Y.K.Bhaskar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 2Section 244(2)Section 244ASection 263

Baroda) filed its return for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 30/10/2007 declaring the total income of Rs. 997,10,30,681/-, subsequently a revised return was filed declaring total income or Rs. 615,19,97,000/- on 19/03/2009. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 23/03/2009, assessing the total ... assessee had claimed refund of Rs. 21,19,54,764/- as against the claim of refund of Rs. 337,74,22,347/- in the revised return. As per the Ld. CIT, since the delay in claiming enhanced refund was attributable to the assessee, interest on refund

Kalpana Medical Centre Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 347/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No.2847, 2848/Mds/2014 & 347/Mds/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008,2008-2009 & 2009-10 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

construction of the building. As such, AO issued a notice u/s 148 Act on 30.03.2012 for reopening assessment. Subsequent to this, the assessee filed revised return of income on 20.04.2012. Later, the matter was referred to DVO to ascertain the cost of construction and was submitted the valuation report

Kalpana Medical Centre Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2848/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No.2847, 2848/Mds/2014 & 347/Mds/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008,2008-2009 & 2009-10 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

construction of the building. As such, AO issued a notice u/s 148 Act on 30.03.2012 for reopening assessment. Subsequent to this, the assessee filed revised return of income on 20.04.2012. Later, the matter was referred to DVO to ascertain the cost of construction and was submitted the valuation report

Kalpana Medical Centre Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2847/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarअपील अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No.2847, 2848/Mds/2014 & 347/Mds/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008,2008-2009 & 2009-10 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

construction of the building. As such, AO issued a notice u/s 148 Act on 30.03.2012 for reopening assessment. Subsequent to this, the assessee filed revised return of income on 20.04.2012. Later, the matter was referred to DVO to ascertain the cost of construction and was submitted the valuation report

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-02 vs. Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/702/2016HC Delhi08 Nov 2016
Section 260ASection 71

which it obtained on 09.04.2008. For AY 2008-09, its assessment declared an income of `2,84,56,074/-; later, the assessee filed a revised return, declaring loss of `2,68,67,610/-. In the computation of its total income, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that interest income received ... other questions urged, i.e. whether the loss could have been allowed at all having regard to the fact that it was claimed in the revised return and not in the original return, we are of the opinion that this cannot be the question of law. The revised return was filed

Kantilal M. Vardhan, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1282/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1282/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Kantilal M. Vardhan, The Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 303, Commerce House, R No. 02A/138, V. 140, N.M. Road, Fort, 1St Floor, Mumbai -400023. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpv7236N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

consultants and quantified his correct income for the year and paid self assessment tax of Rs. 4,59,660/- on 15th January, 2009. A revised return of income was filed on 15th January, 2009 declaring income of Rs.11,23,680/ - after paying the self assessment tax and thereafter the revised ... regularized by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30th July, 2009. It was submitted that the assessee had voluntarily filed her revised return of income before the notice for re-opening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act was sent to the assessee and that