TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee initially filed the original return of income on September 28, 2012, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,44,03,930/-. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the assessee received a credit for prepaid taxes amounting to Rs. 36,31,131/- with a refund of Rs. 7,067/-. Following a search action on the assessee, a notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act on August 12, 2013, to file a return for the assessment year 2012-13 within 45 days. Although the notice was served on August 19, 2013, the assessee failed to file the return within the prescribed time, and instead filed a manual return on October 10, 2013, which was the same as the original return filed earlier. This return of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn that was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, making it a belated return. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the action of the Assessing Officer, against this order under section 154 of Act, reversing the claim made by the assessee for deduction under section 54B of Rs. 54,24,000/-. During the appeallate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that the previous AO had no issues with the claim made under section 54B and had allowed the deduction based on the revised return. The assessee submitted that since the original return had been filed on time, the assessee was entitled to revise it until March 31, 2014, and therefore, the revised return was filed within the permissible period. The assessee relied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: "1. On the facts and in the on the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Honorable CIT - Appeals-11, Ahmedabad has erred in passing order u/s 250, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. Without prejudice to above ground, on the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the Honorable CIT-Appeals-11, Ahmedabad has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,24,000/- made by the ld. AO u/s 54B, by disallowing appellant's claim made vide filing revised return 139(5). 3. Without prejudice to above ground, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he earlier AO was not based on a debatable issue but was simply a correction of a statistical mistake. The Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that the it is well-settled law that an assessee can make a fresh claim before the first appellate authority, even if the claim was not made during the assessment proceedings. In this case, the assessee had already made the claim under section 54B by filing the revised return, and it was accepted during the assessment. The assessee had prayed to the CIT(A) to allow this genuine deduction, but the CIT(A) failed to address this in the appellate order. The assessee submitted that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the claim and verified it, even if it was debatable. The Counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in a block return which is filed beyond time-limit of 45 days prescribed in notice but before completion of assessment is a valid return and same cannot be ignored by Assessing Officer. However, the issue before us is not whether the returned filed beyond the time period of 45 days is a valid return or not, but the issue for consideration is whether the said belated return, even though valid, could be revised under section 139(5) of the Act. In the instant facts, we observe that the assessee had revised original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 28.09.2012, in which the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act. Thereafter, in consequence to search action, the assessee filed belated return of in....