2015 (4) TMI 840

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent-assessee. 2. Mr. Pinto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Appeal submits, that the questions at page Nos.5 and 6 of the paper-book are substantial questions of law. 3. He submits that this is a case of survey action carried out on the assessee's business premises on 11-9-2008. Subsequent to the survey, a Notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the I.T. Act") was issued to the assessee calling for its return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08. That was not filed by the assessee. In response to this Notice, the assessee filed a return of income on 23-9-2008, declaring income of Rs. 1,35,47,15,708/-. In this return of income, the assessee-company inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to the Notice issued under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act and that could not have been revised and assuming it can be so, still the requirement under sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the I.T. Act having not been fulfilled, there was no obligation to consider the revised return. In considering it, the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 7. We will dispose of this first contention of Mr. Pinto as, in our opinion, the same does not deserve to be accepted. Section 139, which falls under Chapter XIV, deals with return of income. Sub-section (1) thereof contemplates furnishing of a return of income in the prescribed form and on or before the due date. 8. By sub-section (4) of Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fulfillment of the conditions under sub-section(5). Once this is the clear legal position and the only inquiry before the Tribunal was whether there was indeed a discovery of any omission or wrong statement in the original return, then, the first and second questions at page 5 of the paper-book are not substantial questions of law. 10. In relation to the third question, what we have noticed is that the Revenue is seeking re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the factual material on record. That is a course permissible, provided the factual findings can be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the argument was, that this income which was declared could not have been therea....