TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that such revised computation based on Audited financial statements should be filed in the form revised return though no such ratio would apply for a decision by the appellate authority and there by erred in dismissing the appeal. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that even the CBDT has issued circular u/s. 119 in respect of Government Corporations to accept the returns filed belatedly accepting the fact that the audited financial statements of the Government Corporations would invariably get delayed and in the assessee's case in view of such delay there was no time to file revised return and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing". 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant is a Government company, engaged in providing finance to industries set up in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It filed return of income for the AY. 2011-12 disclosing total income of Rs. 2,80,48,470/- on 28-09-2011 under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act [Act] and Rs. 3,90,47,195/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. After processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was also rejected. 5.3 It is quite possible and natural that in submitting a return, some bona fide omission or wrong statement may have occurred. In order to obviate this possibility the legislature has made provisions in section 139(5) enabling an assessee to furnish a revised return. Thus, the assessee has a right to file revised return if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the originally filed return. Such a revised return can be furnished at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant A.Y. or the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Thus, the statute provides safeguard to an assessee in case he discovers any omission or wrong statement in his original return to file a revised return. The further requirement is that this omission or wrong statement in the original return must be due to a bona fide inadvertence or mistake on the part of the assessee. 5.4 There is a distinction between a revised return and a correction in the originally filed return. If an assessee files an application for correcting a return already filed or for making some amendments therein, it would not certainly mean that he has filed a revised retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004 SC 2615). 5.9 Therefore, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer is justified in completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the original return filed under Section 139(1) without taking into consideration the revised statement filed subsequently in absence of the revised return as contemplated under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. While drawing this inference, I rely on ORISSA RURAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2012) 247 CTR 0137: (2012) 343 ITR 0316: (2012) 204 TAXMAN 0673, where in it was held that there is no provision under the IT Act to enable an assessee to revise his income by way of filing a revised statement of income. Assessee cannot revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income. In absence of the revised return as provided under s. 139(5), the AO is bound to make assessment on the basis of original return". Being aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal before us in the present appeal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the AO was justified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion that the second revised return, which was filed beyond the period of limitation, being non est in law, would not be considered for the purposes of ascertaining the taxable income. 14. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shriram Investments case (supra) is concerned, according to us, it has no applicability to the issue raised in the instant appeal. In that case, the Tribunal appears to have allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 35 B of the Act without examining the facts of the case. The assessee, evidently, had neither made a claim before the ITO nor the AAC nor, had he, furnished particulars of the expenditure incurred by it. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the onus of proving facts and obtaining the benefit of a deduction lay on the assessee. It was further observed that since the assessee failed to prove its claim before the ITO or the AAC, the Tribunal could not have allowed the claim on assumption of facts. 15. As indicated above, the ratio on the said judgment is entirely different and therefore, has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 16. Similarly, the judgment of th....