2022 (11) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground 2, submitted that the initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. In this context, it was submitted that the PCIT is seeking to revise the assessment order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. It was submitted that the assessee had filed original return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act on 06.09.2017 and subsequently it was revised u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act within the time limited prescribed on 07.03.2019. It was submitted that the assessment completed on 28.11.2019 stems from the original return filed on 06.09.2017. In this context, it was contended that the revised return filed on 07.03.2019 effaces and obliterates original return and only revised return is to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that the assessee had filed revised return on 07.03.2019. In the instant case, admittedly, the PCIT is seeking to revise the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act which stems from the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. For doing so, the PCIT states that the revised return of income has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act and the same is non est. This statement of the PCIT in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 is factually incorrect. The revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act dated 07.03.2019 is well within the time limited prescribed and the same is not non est. 5. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited (sup....