2024 (12) TMI 985 - AT - Income Tax

Revised return under section 139(5) after belated return under section 153A ruled invalid, section 54B benefits denied

Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

The ITAT Ahmedabad held that a revised return filed under section 139(5) after filing a belated return under section 153A is invalid. The assessee filed a ... Revising a belated return of income - Filing a revised return u/s 139(5) after filing a belated return u/s 153A - whether the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 30.03.2014, revising the belated return dated 10.10.2013 can be said to be a valid return of income under section 139(5)? HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that since the belated return, (even if deemed to be valid) cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the Act then the assessee also cannot claim benefit of section 54B of the Act, in the said, revised return of income which is not a valid return of income in the eyes of law. In view of the above facts and the plain language of the Statute, as it stood at the relevant time, which did not permit the assessee to revise a belated return of income, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Validity of filing a revised return under section 139(5) after filing a belated return under section 153A.2. Allowability of deduction under section 54B based on a revised return filed after the due date.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the validity of filing a revised return under section 139(5) after submitting a belated return under section 153A for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee initially filed the original return on time but later filed a belated return under section 153A due to a search action. The AO considered the income as per the belated return instead of the revised return filed under section 139(5). The DCIT rectified the order to allow a deduction under section 54B, but a new AO later reversed this decision, stating that a belated return cannot be revised under section 139(5) and thus, the rectification was invalid.During the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued that the claim for deduction under section 54B was valid as it was made before the completion of the assessment, even though it was not included in the original return. The Counsel for the assessee cited various case laws supporting this argument. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the revised return filed under section 153A was belated and could not be revised. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the allowance of the deduction under section 54B as a debatable issue, not a mistake apparent from the record, and thus, the rectification order was deemed invalid.The ITAT observed that a belated return filed under section 153A cannot be revised under section 139(5) as per the law at the time. The assessee's revised return claiming deduction under section 54B was not considered valid, as it was filed after the due date. The ITAT referred to a specific order and highlighted that the belated return cannot be revised, making the rectification order invalid. The Ld. CIT(A)'s decision was supported based on the law's plain language at the time, which did not allow revising belated returns.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the law did not permit revising belated returns under section 139(5) and, therefore, the deduction under section 54B based on a revised return filed after the due date was disallowed. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld, and no interference was warranted.