TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn on 30-6-1983 declaring a loss of Rs. 92,97,640. Thereafter he filed a revised return on 13-9-1985 and filed nil income as in the revised return the assessee withdrawn its claim of interest of Rs. 66,93,574 payable to the financial institutions and banks. The ITO did not accept the claim of the assessee in the revised return. According to him, the interest in question was waived/remitted in the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1984-85 and not in the accounting year under consideration. Therefore, when the liability of interest accrued and the assessee has rightly claimed as deduction in the original return when the interest was waived and remitted in 1984-85 in the relevant year, that will be taken as the income of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn at any time before the assessment is made." The condition provided for filing the revised return is that the assessee should discover any omission or any wrong statement therein. If we look into the facts of the case, in our view, there is not omission on the part of the assessee while he files the original return an claims the interest in question as deduction. As the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting, and during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year, the interest in question was not waived or remitted by the creditors. Therefore, the assessee was fully justified in claiming the interest in question as deduction in the original return. When there is to omission on the part of the assessee in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it. And the word 'discovers' will taken within its ambit that which was hidden, concealed or unknown. The benefit of section 139(5) cannot be claimed by a person who has filed the first return knowing it to be false. If an assessee deliberately omitted particulars of income or made wrong statements in the original return the revised return would be of no avail to him as it would not be a return contemplated by action 139(5) of the Act." Agains their Lordship have taken the similar view which was taken by their Lordships of the M. P. High Court in the case above. 8. In kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha's case, their Lordships have provided two conditions for validity of the revised return, which reads as under : "(i) that the revised returns ....