TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer (A.O) as confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], your appellant prefers an appeal against the same on following grounds, which, it is prayed, may be considered without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessment Order, which has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence, is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not accepting of 3rd revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not considering the rectification of error carried out in the computation of total income along with 3rd revised return, on account of provision for leave encashment." 3. In brief, the controversy in this appeal can be understood as follows. In this case, assessee company originally filed its return of income on 01/11/2004 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,55,79,908/-, which was duly accompanied by the statement showing computation of total income, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion was based on justifiable ground. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and after considering the remand report and the submissions of assessee, he has proceeded to affirm the stand of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) in her concluding discussion records as under:- "So even if the 3rd revised return is accepted which is permissible as it is filed within time, the claim made by the appellant in the 3rd revised return cannot be granted because it is not done property without the submission of the auditors' Report or note. In the instant case, the appellant should have submitted the note of the auditor with the 3rd revised return to make it a complete and proper revised return. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed." 5. Against the aforesaid decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer of not considering the third revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act and further that the error pointed out by the assessee in the computation of total income in the second revised return on account of exces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to take cognizance of the same, which clearly he did not do, as reflected in para-6 of the assessment order. Moreover, the approach of the CIT(A) is also untenable because she has proceeded to reject the claim of the assessee in the third revised return merely in the absence of any note of the auditor with regard to the error/omission sought to be corrected by the assessee in third revised return. The approach of the CIT(A), in our considered opinion, is hyper-technical and in fact is dehors the fact-situation, which assessee has been consistently trying to put-forth regarding the excess addback to the total income made in the second revised return on account of unpaid provision for earned leave. The claim of the assessee has been countered by the lower authorities on the ground that the tax audit report furnished by the auditor under section 44AB of the Act reflected the unpaid Provision for leave encashment at Rs. 2,14,35,533/- and not Rs. 18,65,982/- claimed by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the claim made by the assessee ought to have been examined on merit and not shut-out in a superficial manner. Obviously, the claim of the assessee is based on the fact that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved that 3rd revised return was invalid as the signature of the Director on the tax audit report was improper" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the pendency of assessee's appeal in regard to order u/s 263 for the A.Y under consideration'. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 9. First, we may take up the appeal of the Revenue, wherein the only grievance is that the CIT(A) has erred in directing that the third revised return filed by the assessee on 13/10/2005 be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while computing the total income. This aspect of the controversy has already been adjudicated by us in ITA No.3745/Mum/2013, wherein we have upheld the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer ought to have taken cognizance of the third revised return filed on 13/10/2005. In view of our decision in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3745/mum/2013, the stand of the Revenue in the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. We hol....