TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egards refusing to accept the revised return and adding Rs. 84,49,131/- being the difference between the income returned as per original return and the income as per revised return: 2.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted the statutory provisions under the IT Act and judicial precedence in accepting the revised return under section 139 (5) of the IT Act, ought to have accepted the revised return filed by the Appellant when it had justifiable reason for filing revised return and more particularly when it had reconciled, explained & substantiated its explanation with documentary evidences with respect to each of the line items of difference between original return and revised return. 2.2. The Learned Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 32(1)(iia). 4. As regards disallowing Rs. 1,15,897/- being sundry purchases: 4.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in disallowing Rs. 1,15,897/- being the sundry purchases which were written off during the year. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer are not justified in treating the aforesaid expenditure as capital and allowing depreciation at the rate of 10% without even categorizing the said sundry purchases are either plant, machinery, building, furniture or fixture. The Learned lower authorities have failed to appreciate that sundry purchases are essentially the revenue items and the entire expenditure on them is liable to be written off. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed its original Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring income of Rs. 2,14,69,131. Subsequently, the revised return of income was filed on 1.4.2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,30,20,000. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making the following additions / disallowances :- i. Disallowance against purchase of tools .......Rs. 3,50,544. ii. Disallowance relating to delay in remitting employee's contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs. 2,68,794. iii. Disallowance of contribution made towards super annuation fund of Rs. 11,89,000. iv. Disallowance made u/s.14A of Rs. 1,65,000. v. Disallowance of Rs. 1,15,897 being sundry charges. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Return under Section 139(5) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Revised Return filed by the assessee is within the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act and being so once the Revsied Return is filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, the original return is substituted by Revised Return consequently the assessment framed according to the Revised Return only. For this purpose he relied on the decision in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Machine Tools Corporation India Ltd. 201 ITR 101 (Kar). He also relied on the judgement of CIT Vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. 191 ITR 256 and Dharmpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad) and CIT Vs. UPR NN Limited 36 Taxman.com 96. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is any defect in the Books of Accounts he specifically point out the same and make specific addition. Being so, when the Books of Accounts are duly audited and approved by the AGM, the assessment has to be completed on the basis of Revised Return. There is no scope of taking the difference in income declared in the original return and revised return as additional income of the assessee. We are completely in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer cannot consider the income declared in the original return based on the unaudited books of accounts over the income declared in revised return based on the audited books of accounts. We direct the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer wrongly noted that the assessee has charged the expenditure to P & L Account. According to him, the Assessing Officer considered the sundry charges at Rs. 1,28,744 and granted 10% depreciation and disallowed Rs. 1,15,897 which is incorrect. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration to decide whether it is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure , if it is a capital expenditure, depreciation is to be granted at applicable rate. Both additional ground and main ground are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Next ground is regarding disallowance of Rs. 3,50,544 being 25% of charges of tools which are written off during the year. The assessee has debited a sum o....