“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

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

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

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

Binary Semantics Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5773/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Binary Semantics Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Plot No. 38, Sector-18, New Delhi Electronic City, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaacb0652N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2014 Of Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Are Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio. 2. The Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By Cit(A) In Book Profit Of The Interest Received On Tax Refund Of Rs. 2,50,737/- Is Incorrect As Interest For The Year 2010-11 (Up To The Date Of Receipt Of Refund) Was Already Included In Income Of The Company. The Addition Is Arbitrary, Unlawful & Against Facts. 3. The Appellant Prays For Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw From Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal At Or Before The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, DR

Section 115J

hearing. 2 AY:2011-12 2. The facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the lower authorities are that in the revised return of income filed, the assessee declared loss of Rs. 15,32,790/- as per normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 901/BANG/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P Georgedeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Sasken Communication Technology Ltd., No.139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaecs6424R & Cross Objn.No.70/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.901/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2002-03) (By Assessee) ******* Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jcit(Dr). Respondent By: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, Ca.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, CA

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which return was processed u/s 143(1) on 31/03/2003 accepting the returned income. Assessee filed a revised return of income on 19/11/2003 declaring loss of Rs.62,72,160/-. Said return was also processed u/s 143(1) on 25/3/2004. In the said revised return, assessee mentioned that revision was done ... revision. 4. AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22/8/2006. In response to said notice, assessee filed copy of the revised return it had earlier filed. Assessee also objected to the reopening of ITA No.001 & CO 70/Bang/2015 M/s.Sasken Communication Technology Ltd. Page 3 of 9 assessment stating

ACIT 15(2), Mumbai vs. Amtrade, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5593/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit-15(2), M/S Amtrade, Matru Mandir, 311, Sagar Tech, Plaza B, बनाम/ Room No.113, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Tardeo Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aajfa7407L

Section 145

reseller, importer and exporter of paints, adhesive, machine tools allied products and fabric etc, declared income of Rs.11,59,449/- on 08/11/2007 and filed revised return declaring total income at Rs.12,50,784/- on 13/11/2007. On verification of the purchase bills (photocopies, it was noticed that some of the bills

Madhabi Nag, Bankura vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Asansol

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Ram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitav Bhattacharjee, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee offered to tax the long term capital gain in the return of income filed by him. The assessee had not filed the revised return of income claiming exemption of long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the decision ... view that the assessee cannot make a claim which is not supported by a revised return of income. He therefore held that the AO rightly dismissed the application of the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present

ACIT, C.C. Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as being withdrawn

ITA 725/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 725/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09 Acit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 1390, 1391 & 1553/Kol/2010 A.Ys 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08 Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd Pan:Aabck 2533L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos. 106, 107 & 140/Kol/2010 [ A/O Ita Nos.1390, 1391& 1553/Kol/2010 Ays. ’03-04, ’04-05& ’07-08] For The Appellant/Department: None Appeared For The Respondent/Assessee : Shria.K Tibrewal, Fca

For Appellant: ShriA.K Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: None appeared

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 80I

Date of filing the 1.12.2003 1.11.2004 30.10.2007 24.12.2008 original Return of Income Date of filling the N.A N.A 5.3.2008 N.A revised return of income, if any Date of 143(1) N.A N.A N.A 27.8.2009 Intimation Time limit for 31.12.2004 30.11.2005 30.9.2008 30.9.2009 issuance of Notice u/s.143(2) Date of completion

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri Mahavir Singh,Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant

ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jewel Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3585/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.5989 & 5990 & 2992/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2002-03 To 2004-05) Pundlik Laxman Masane, Plot Vs. Ito Ward-26(1)(1), No.35, Mahavir Society, Charni Road, Mumbai Malegaon Road, Dhule-424001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ablpm 5522 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujle याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ajay Modi सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 14-3-2011, For The Assessment Year 2002-03 To 2004-05, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act, By Ito- 26(1)(1), Mumbai. 2. In All These Appeals, The Assessee Had Challenged The Jurisdiction Of Ao-26(1)(1), Who Had Passed Order U/S.144 R.W.S.147 Of I.T. Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. From The Record We Found That Jurisdiction Of The Assessee’S Case For All These Years Lies With The Ito, Dhule, Where He Resides, Having Salary Income Received At Dhule Since Many Years From Bharat Petroleum Corporation. The Assessee Was Also Regularly Filing His Return At Dhule. Thus, The Cit/Ccit Nasik Had The Jurisdiction Over Dhule Area. However, The Cit-26, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 127(2)Section 144

direct the AO/ITO- 26(1)(1) to transfer all these files to the ITO Dhule for deciding all the appeals afresh by considering the revised return filed by the assessee at ITO, Dhule. We direct accordingly. 4. In the result, all appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Addl Cirt G 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 254(1)

held that the assessee had shown the income as revenue receipt in the books of account, that it did not file revised return, that the amount received by it was directly linked with running of the business.Upholding the order of the AO,he rejected the appeal filed by the assessee

Sunshield Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5045/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode ,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 71

issued to the assessee company on 18.08.2008.The original return was revised by the assessee company by filing revised return of income on 30.03.2009 revising the loss to (-) Rs.32,92,004/-. The loss is reduced in the revised return as compared to the original return of income filed with Revenue

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

inaccurate particulars of his income. It vanished before it could be detected. 21. The correct and accurate disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the Assessing Officer. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised

National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

The appeal are allowed

ITA 6562/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Horticulture Dcit Board, Circle-2, Vs. 85, Institutional Area, Gurgaon Sector-18, Gurgaon Pan:Aaatn0804F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Akhil B. Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Akhil B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 010Section 10(23)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234B

promote, encourage and develop horticulture activities across India. The assessee society filed the return of income declaring an income of Rs.NIL on 23.09.2011 and revised return income of Rs. NIL on 17.01.2012. The return was processed u/s 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Crazy Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4250/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Goel, CA

Section 133Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Mittal 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein, the assessee had originally filed returns showing meager income. After search u/s 132 and notice for re-opening, revised returns were filed showing higher income. In penalty proceedings under section 271, assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to purchase peace and avoid ... income. When, after action under section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961, a notice under section 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually, assessment orders were passed and the returns submitted regularized under section 148. In penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee

D.C.I.T Cir - 55, Kolkata vs. Sri Santibrata Saha, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 651/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

balance of sundry creditors, if any. He further argued that the Learned AO had accepted the gross profit declared by the assessee in the revised return filed pursuant to survey and when trading results are accepted, ITA No 651/Kol/2013-C-AM 2 Sri Santibrata Saha where is the question of making ... arguments of the Learned AR in respect of this addition that when the trading results are accepted by the Learned AO based on revised return filed by the assessee, there is no scope for disputing the veracity of the trade creditors as admittedly the trade creditors had emanated only

DCIT, Tirunelveli vs. M.Lazar Adaikalam, Tirunelveli

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2753/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. B. Nischal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Gopalan, JCIT (Retd)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act though assessee has disclosed income in survey operations u/s.133A of the Act and filed revised return and paid taxes. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired teacher from Palayamkottai, took voluntary retirement from ... assessment year 2010-2011 being total amount aggregating to "1.60 crores. The assessee being a retired teacher offered additional income and filed revised return on 18.05.2011 and paid taxes "29,92,370/- including interest. The ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment treating the revised return filed within the stipulated time under

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Amarjeet B Yadav, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3322/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3322/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2) Room No. 204, C-11, Pratyaksh अपीलाथ#/Appellant Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Amarjeet B. Yadav 13-A, Shakti Tower, Shakti Nagar $%यथ#/Respondent C.S. Road No. 4, Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400068 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan - Aappy9548L Shri Satya Pal Kumar अपीलाथ# क& ओर से / Appellant By: None $%यथ# क& ओर से/ Respondent By: सुनवाई क& तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 घोषणा क& तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: None

Section 139Section 44A

shown gross, receipts of `9,05,244/- and against this he declared profit of `3,28,598/- and TDS of `12,224/-. In the revised return assessee has further claimed TDS of `51,294/- and gross receipts have been declared at `19,88,089/-. In view of this Assessee ... receipts should not be treated as receipts not offered to tax. The stand of assessee in this regard has been that he had filed revised return in that gross receipt of `30,50,412/- and net profit is `3,28,598/- which is 10% of total turnover of the above

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 3703/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

shown in the books as revenue receipt, that the claim of it being a capital receipt was neither made in the return nor a revised return was filed, that the amount received by the assessee was directly linked with the running and operation of the business, that it was revenue ... made by filing a revised return.In our opinion for making a fresh claim before the appellate authority the assessee is not required to file revised return as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prithvi Brokers (349ITR336) However, the AO cannot accept a fresh claim

Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3634/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

Fathima Hospital P Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT (A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 7867/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7867/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01)

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Subramanian(AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

assessee had filed the return of income 2 Assessment Year: 2000-01 for the year under consideration originally on 29/11/2000 and subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 25/10/2002. The assessee’s representatives stated that the same may be treated as the return filed in response

ITO 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citizen Scales (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4731/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2009-10 Ito-9(1)(2), M/S Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. R. No.226, Shop No.3, Pushpanjali बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Gaushala Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Malad (East), Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcc3800G Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh- राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jitendra Singh

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings itself and thereafter the assessee immediately paid the taxes. It is noted that the assessee filed the revised return on 15.10.2009 and paid the taxes before 3 M/s Citizen Scales (I) Pvt. Ltd. completion of assessment. In such a situation the decision from ... held that mere making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the present appeal the assessee filed the revised return and paid the taxes, therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. It is also noted that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing

Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. DCIT

ITA - 132 / 2008HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 260A

requested for a short 2015:DHC:9521-DB ITA 132/2008 Page 3 of 19 adjournment to enable the Assessee to file a revised return of income. 5. At this stage it requires to be noticed that in his statement of affairs filed along with his return of income on 19th ... Mohan Singh, AR who attended the assessment proceedings on 22nd March 1994 requested for a short adjournment to enable the Assessee to file a revised return of income in which he proposes to include the surrendered amount of Rs. 13.31 cores. The AO in the assessment order noted that this