TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,400/-. The details of income declared in the revised return are as under :- Income from salary : Rs. 5,90,400/- Profits and gains from Business and Profession : (-) Rs. 14,73,068/- Loss on speculation business : Rs. 58,329/- 3. The assessee also filed audited balancesheet and profit and loss account alongwith revised return of income and has shown sale of shares amounting to Rs. 33,73,395/- and share purchase amounting to Rs. 57,20,755/- and has shown loss of Rs. 23,47,360/- and loss from Speculation business of share amounting to Rs. 58,329/-. The assessee has also disclosed income of Rs. 13,60,000/- under the head portfolio consultancy received during the F.Y.2014-15 in his revised return of Income. On perusal of the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Balance sheet has been signed by the auditors on 30.09.2016 and Tax Audit Report was signed on 31.07.2015. He, therefore, asked the assessee vide questionnaire dated 30.06.2017 to give reply on the above. The assessee in his reply dated 12.07.2017 submitted that Balance sheet and Tax Audit Report has been signed by the auditor on 31.07.2015. This was a clerical mistak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the lower authorities, therefore, both the lower authorities have passed the order against principles of natural justice. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the orders passed by the Ld. AO as well as by the Ld. CIT (A) are without application of mind by ignoring all the documents and details filed before them, therefore, the Assessment Order as well as CIT (A) appeal order is illegal and un - sustainable. (Ground No-1) 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on merits in disallowing loss of Rs. 14,73,068/- earned during the year, therefore, the whole disallowance made is illegal, unsustainable and without application of mind. (Ground No-2) 4 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on merits in disallowing speculation loss of Rs. 58,239/- earned during the year, therefore, the whole disallowance made is illegal, unsustainable and without application of mind." Ground No-3) All the above grounds are mutually exclusive and not linked with each other. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strative PCIT/ CIT / PDIT / DIT for converting a limited scrutiny case into a complete scrutiny case. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not followed the mandatory requirement of obtaining approval of the administrative CIT. Therefore, the various additions made by the Assessing Officer are not sustainable. 10. So far as the issue relating to filing of the revised return of income is concerned he submitted that since the return was revised u/s. 139 (5), therefore, the original return filed u/s. 139 (1) would not survive and the claim of loss not made in the original return but claimed in the revised return has to be allowed /carried forwarded. For the above proposition he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Babu Bhai Ramanbhai Patel reported in 249 taxman.com 470, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2695/M/2017 order dated 07.09.2018 and various other decisions. So far as the merit of the case is concerned i.e. relating to deposit of cash and cheque in the bank account, he submitted that the assessee has filed the necessary d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in the case of CIT Vs. Raman Chettiar which has been quoted by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Nazir Ali Vs. CIT reported in 110 ITR 0419, the Assessing Officer held that although the said decision is under the provisions of the old Act, however, the same shall be applicable even to the new Act since the provisions are parimateria and assessee cannot take the advantage of provisions of section 139(5) by deliberately making the omission or wrong statement. I find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Veer Bhadra Singh (HUF) Vs. PCIT vide order dated 05.10.2017 and the decisions of Hon'ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sulemanji Ganibhai Vs. CIT reported in 121 ITR 373 and in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Kumari M. Dubey reported in 171 ITR 144. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that non disclosure of loss claimed on shares was not willful or deliberate but inadvertent mistake and, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Babu Bhai Ramanbhai Patel(supra) and the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on ail the provisions of the Act shall apply as if it was a return under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Under subsection 4 of Section 139, a person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) may still furnish a return at : ny time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. Subsection (5) of Section 139 provides that any person having furnished a return under subsection (1) or sub-section (4) discovers any omission or a wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return any time before the expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. 6. Sub-section (5) of Section 139, therefore, gives right to an assessee who has furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) to revise such return on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement. Such revised return, however, can be filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. This is precisely what the assessee did whil....