“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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

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.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT

298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court

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

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vijayawada

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 335/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23) Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Vs. Transmission Corporation Of Cr Buildings, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Limited Vijayawada – 520002 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35/Viz/2025 [आयकर अपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.Nos.335, 339, 340, 341, 342 & 343/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23)] Transmission Corporation Of Vs. Dcit – Circle – 1(1) Andhra Pradesh Limited Cr Buildings, M.G. Road 48-12-4/1, Gunadala Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabct0088P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

credit available in 26AS. (vi) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (Part B – TI of ITR) and (vii) Taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in the original return (Part B – TI of ITR). 4. Thereafter, statutory notices under section

Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1986/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 51

facts of the case of the assessee is that the return of income for AY 2012- 13 was filed by the assessee and also revised return of income filed showing total income at Rs. 32,94,95,864/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice

Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 343/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2009-10 M/S Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat Vs. Ito-1(1)(4), 55/15, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur 16/69/ Kanpur Pan:Aaffs5661Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.03.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Ld. Ao On 25.04.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order In Appeal Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Facts & Deserves To Be Quashed By Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Law & In Facts, In Upholding The Order Of Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Application Made Under Section 154 Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting Contention Of Appellant For Rectification Of Mistake U/S 154 Of The Act On The Ground That Appellant Ought To Have Filed Revised Return Of Income Within Due Date If There Was Any Mistake In Filing Of Original Return Of Income. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Ao Is Bound To Compute Correct Income As Per Provisions Of The Act & Tax Cannot Be Levied At Higher Amount Due To Error Made While Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 250

erred in rejecting contention of appellant for rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that appellant ought to have filed revised return of income within due date if there was any mistake in filing of original return of income. The LD. CIT(A), NFAC ought ... assessee’s accounts. He further pointed out that had the assessee found such a mistake, it was duty bound to file a revised return under section 139(5) and because of the failure to do so, its application could not be entertained. The ld. AO also held that the application

Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 04.08.2017 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee filed his revised return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 16.07.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.37,32,299/- including capital gain on the sale

E-Xpress Interactive Software Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-04, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1951/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am E-Xpress Interactive Software Private Pcit-4, Limited Mumbai 401, 4Th Floor, Wester Edge 1, Vs. Western Express High Way, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80CSection 80G

year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 13.02.2021, declaring total income at Rs.7,27,57,020/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 27.03.2021, declaring total income of Rs.6,95,09,2020/-. 3. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) verified ... dated 03.09.2022, the A.O. completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, accepting the income offered by the assessee in the revised return of income. 4. Post completion of assessment, as aforesaid, ld. PCIT, as it appears from his impugned order, based on audit memo, called

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5423/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was 11 ITA No.2227/Mum/2024 and others Mahadhan Agritech Limited made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Knwon As Smartech Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai-50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2228/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was ITA No.2227/Mum/2024 and others Mahadhan Agritech Limited 11 made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

under Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... goodwill, was made. The revised return of income captured all the adjustments arising out of the scheme of arrangement and was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 10. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.11.2018 on the assessee