← 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

Pratik Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

single order. ITA/3429/Mum/2014 2.Assessee,an individual filed his return of income,on 29.3.2010,declaring income of Rs. 39, 16,000/-.Subsequently,a revised return was filed on 31.03.2011 showing income of Rs.46.76 lakhs,The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny ... determining the income of the assessee at 46,77,550/-. 3.During the assessment proceedings,the assessee was asked as to why the revised return should be considered,as the original rerun was not filed in time as provided u/s.139(1)of the Act. Accordingly,the revised return was not considered

Pratima B. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3428/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3428 /Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Smt. Pratima B. Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aafps 3008 R आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./ 3429/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Pratik Bharat Shah The Acit, Range-16(3) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 194, Gaiwadi Compound, Girgaum Vs. Road,Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan:Aagps 1424 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 14.2.14,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai The Assessees Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Same Issue-Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) Of The Act-Is Involved In Both The Cases & The Assessees Are Members Of The Same Family,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals By A Single Order.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta &Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

single order. ITA/3429/Mum/2014 2.Assessee,an individual filed his return of income,on 29.3.2010,declaring income of Rs. 39, 16,000/-.Subsequently,a revised return was filed on 31.03.2011 showing income of Rs.46.76 lakhs,The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny ... determining the income of the assessee at 46,77,550/-. 3.During the assessment proceedings,the assessee was asked as to why the revised return should be considered,as the original rerun was not filed in time as provided u/s.139(1)of the Act. Accordingly,the revised return was not considered