TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46,654 and agricultural income of Rs.6,05,438. Subsequently, the taxpayer has filed a revised return on 20- 12-2010. According to the ld.senior counsel, the assessment year under consideration is 2009-10 and time limit for filing return of income u/s 139(4) is available upto 31-03-2011. The revised return of income filed on 20-12-2010 being much before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(4) of the Act, the revised return filed by the taxpayer is a valid return. After filing the original return on 17-12-2010, the taxpayer came to know that the capital gain arising out of the sale of agricultural land was wrongly included in the original return, the taxpayer filed a revised return was filed on 20-12-2010. Referring to the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....belatedly filed the return of income on 17-12-2010. Therefore, the return filed on 17-10-2010 is not a return filed either u/s 139(1) or u/s 142(1) of the Act. Referring to section 139(5) of the Act, the ld.DR submitted that if any person having furnished a return of income either u/s 139(1) or in pursuance of a notice issued u/s 142(1), discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. In this case, admittedly, the taxpayer has not filed any return of income either u/s 139(1) or within the time limit prescribed u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d his wife is a sale in pursuance of an agreement to sell the engineering college. Therefore, the Commissioner found that the subject land is a commercial property; hence, capital gain has to be taxed. The Commissioner has also found that since the revised return was not valid, the claim of the taxpayer in the revised return cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra). 7. On a bare reading of the assessment order it is seen that the assessing officer without any discussion found that though the revised return is not valid, the claim of the taxpayer is genuine. The assessing officer has not discussed anything as to whether the land is an agricultural land or not? The assessing off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Apex Court in Toyoto Motor Corporation (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC). In view of the above, the judgment of the Apex Court in Max India Ltd (supra) may not be of any assistance to the taxpayer. 8. The next question arises for consideration is whether the revised return filed by the taxpayer is valid or not? We have carefully gone through provisions of section 139(5) of the Act which enables the taxpayer to file a revised return. As per section 139(5), if any person having furnished a return of income either u/s 139(1) or in pursuance of a notice issued u/s 142(1), discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax, or is not income within the contemplation of law, he may likewise bring this to the notice of the assessing authority, which if satisfied, may grant him relief and refund the tax paid in excess, if any. Such matters can be brought to the notice of the concerned authority in a case when refund is due and payable, and the authority concerned, on being satisfied, shall grant appropriate relief." 10. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court in Shelly Products (supra), it is obvious that any mistake or inadvertence or on account of ignorance any income which is exempt from payment of tax or is not an income within the contemplation of law it may be brought to the notice of the assessing authority, which, if satisfied, may gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." 13. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, this Tribunal can accept the claim of the taxpayer without any revised return. In other words, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra) is only limited to the power of the assessing officer and it does not in any ....