TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the claim of the assessee regarding the depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 23,93,31,090/. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 29.11.2011 for A.Y. 2011-12 declaring loss of Rs.(35,69,59,530/-), the return was revised on 15.03.2013 which enhanced the total loss to Rs.(55,72,49,353). An assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 09.03.2015 which determined total loss of Rs.(-)35,69,59,530/- in which the loss in the revised return was restricted to Rs.(-)35,69,59,530/- which was the loss as per the original return filed by the assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has disallowed the depreciation claimed of Rs. 23,93,31,090/-and thereby restri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any deprecation of goodwill and revised return without the auditors approval. 6. Upon the assessee's appeal in this regard, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. on the ground that the return has been filed beyond the time specified and no condonation has been sought u/s.119(2) of the Act. The order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard may be gainfully referred as under: 3.3. I have also gone through the Sec. 119(2)(b) where the assessee or the taxpayer file the application for any claim of exemption, deduction, refund or for any other relief after the expiry of the period specified under this Act. Provision is as under : "119-(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power: (b) the Board may, if it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn inasmuch as the A.O. has made the assessment subsequent to the filing of the revised return and the revised return has not been treated as nonest. Moreover, there was no reason to treat the same as nonest as the same was filed within the time mandated u/s. 139(5) of the Act. When the revised return was filed on time as per section 139(1) and 139(5), in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee required any condonation u/s. 119(2)(b). We find that there are several case laws for the proposition that the time limit as specified in section 139(1) should be read along with the provision of section 139(5). It is not a case here that no return was filed u/s. 139(1) or that it was belated. The authorities are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... must file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under section 139(1) of the Act. It was further submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of section 139 claiming carry forward or set off of loss was filed, such claim could not be subject matter of a revised return. HELD ■ Under sub-section (1) of section 139, every person whose income for the previous year exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, is required to file a return before the due date. Sub-section (3) of section 139 provides that any person who has sustained a loss and claims that the loss should be carried forward would file a return of loss within the time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (5) of section 139 allows the assessee to revise the return filed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) as long as the time frame provided therein is adhered to and the requirement of the revised return has arisen on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement in the return originally filed. Accepting the contention of the revenue would amount to limiting the scope of revising the return already filed by the assessee flowing from sub-section (5). No such language or intention flows from such provision. ■ In view of the above, there is no error in the view of the Tribunal. The revenue's appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 10. From this decision it emanates that the assessee has an indefeasible right to revise t....