TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82,05,36,779/- as against net loss as per profit and loss account of (-) Rs. 1332,27,00,075/-. 5. The return of the appellant was taken up for scrutiny under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Scheme (CASS) and accordingly notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.09.2014 to the appellant, and the details were furnished by the appellant on 23.09.2014. 6. During the pendency of the said proceeding initiated through the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued on 04.09.2014, the appellant on 23.02.2015 filed a revised return based on an audit objection by the CAG. The assessment order dt.18.03.2016 7. In the meantime, due to change in incumbent in the office of the Assessing Authority, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.06.2015. Subsequent notices were also issued on 04.08.2015 and 11.01.2016. 8. Thereafter, after issuing a show cause notice on 26.02.2016, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agartala Circle, Agartala completed the assessment on 18.03.2016 by disallowing a deduction of Rs. 40,36,51,685/- under Sections 40(a)(ia), 68 and 37 of the Act by making an assessment at Rs. 1,41,68,85,094/-. The Appeal to CIT (Appeals) and order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return, and only the revised return has to be taken into account for the purpose of making the assessment. The order dt.19.12.2022 of the ITAT 13. Challenging the same, the Revenue filed I.T.A. No.297/GAU/ 2018 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. 14. It was contended in the said appeal by the Revenue that the CIT (Appeals) could not have annulled the Assessment Order because the assessee failed to bring to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during the continuation of the proceeding under Section 143(2) on the original return, that the assessee filed a revised return subsequent to the receiving of notice under Section 143(2) on the original return, that too at the appeal stage. 15. The Tribunal held that in the cases cited by the appellant, it was held that when a revised return was being filed, then the original return would obliterate, and the determination of the taxable income is to be made on the basis of the revised return; but in those cases it was not held that Section 143(2) notice was a must on the revised return, and otherwise the whole assessment proceeding would vitiate. 16. The Tribunal erroneously noted that the revised return had been filed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....194,75,04,007/-. 24. Admittedly Section 139(5) as it stood at the relevant point of time provided that if any person, having furnished a return under Section 139(1) of the Act, discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2015 or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 25. Thus, the time for filing the revised return would end on 31.03.2016, and the revised return had admittedly been filed on 23.02.2015, well within time. 26. Once the revised return is filed, it is well settled that the original return stands obliterated as rightly held by the CIT (Appeals) in his order dt. 24.07.2018 placing reliance on the judgments in C.I.T. v. Rana Polycot Limited (2012) 347 ITR 466 (P&H), Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P&H)., etc. 27. So the Assessing Officer can only take into account the revised return for the purpose of making assessment, and he cannot act upon the original return which stood obliterated. 28. For some reason in the instant case, the Assessing Officer took no notice of the revised return, and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn by giving such a right to the assessee, the Income Tax Department cannot question the wisdom of the Parliament in providing such a right to the assessee, and the Tribunal cannot hold that filing of the revised return would frustrate the assessment machinery. 34. Its view that it is only an irregularity and not an illegality, is also unsustainable having regard to the judgments cited in the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and also more particularly the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra Mills (2000) 3 SCC 615 and other connected matters confirming the judgment in CCIT v. Machine Tools Corpn. Of India (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Karnataka). It was held at para 31 in Mahendra Mills (3 Supra) as under: "31. .... The Court also held that once a revised return is filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, the original return is substituted by the revised return and consequently the entries in the relevant claim of the original return seeking depreciation could not be used for any purpose. It is, therefore, not open to the Income Tax Officer to advert to the original return or statement filed along with it for the purpose of allowing deductions after such cl....