2005 (4) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udhiana, is not considering the revised computation of income and relying upon the original return in view of the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law. 3. That the order of AO as upheld by the learned CIT(A), Ludhiana is not appreciating the settled decisions of law by accepting the revised return of income/computation chart more specifically when the appellant had specifically shown its intention to revise the return and the same was revised in order to complete its obligation immediately after adjudication of the issue by the authorities is bad in law and needs to be set aside." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed original return of income on 31st Oct., 1994 which was processed under s. 143(1)(a) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....return. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case as regards the facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute that the assessee revised the return on 5th July, 1996 but the time available was upto 31st March, 1996 since the return had been filed on 31st Oct., 1994. The assessee had filed the revised return under s. 139(5) of IT Act. We have to see as to whether the return so filed was within the time allowable under s. 139(5) of IT Act. The provisions of s. 139(5) read as under: "If any person, having furnished a return under sub-s. (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-s. (1) of s. 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....original voluntary returns were filed and the revised returns did not obliterate the offence. " In the case of CIT vs. Arun Textile "C" the issue related to the claim of depreciation and it had been held that: "the assessee had not claimed depreciation in the revised return and had made clear its intention not to claim the same and it was not open to the ITO to advert to the original return for the purpose of allowing deduction which claim was expressly withdrawn by filing the revised return." In the case of CWS (India) Ltd. Etc. vs. CIT, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was related to the ceiling provided in s. 40(a)(v) of IT Act and allowance under s. 40A(5)(a)(ii). Similarly in the case of Rajendra Prasad & Co. vs. CIT....