← 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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
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
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.

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

Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre, Miraj, Sangli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 257/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(i)Section 11(1)(ii)Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

income in Form No.5 whereas the form applicable for trust was Form No.7. If this is the fact assessee should have had filed a revised return after getting his PAN number corrected. However, assessee had not taken any action almost for seven and half years. It is also worthwhile

Su Prabhat Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1930/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Suprabhat Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Ward Housing Society 19(3)(1), Mumbai 76, Suprabhat Co-Operative Pratishtha Bhavan, 3Rd & 4Th Vs. Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Floor, 101, M.K. Road, Desai Road, Walkeshwar 400026 Mumbai 400020 Pan: Aaaas5937P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Rajendra Bhende, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl./Jcit (A)-1 Bengaluru/ U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Considering The Reason For Delay Of 21 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal As Stated By The Assessee Which Is Duly Supported By Duly Sworn Affidavit, Prima Facie Appears To Be Bonafide, Genuine & Un-Intentional, Thus, The Delay Of 21 Days Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajendra Bhende, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (CIT DR)
Section 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

intentional, thus, the delay of 21 days is condoned. 3. Coming to merits of the case, this Court that he Assessee has filed revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Act on dated 22.02.2025 within the time prescribed and claimed the deduction