TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case, as could be culled out from the record, are that the assessee is deriving income from the business activity of real estate and property development. Assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring an income of Rs. 8,65,65,355/-. Subsequently, it revised its Return of Income from time to time, namely, on 04/05/2010 and 01/09/2010 revising the income to Rs. 14,68,17,832/- and Rs. 5,21,00,400/- respectively, and lastly on 06/06/2011 declaring Nil income. In the third and fourth Returns of Income the gross sales were shown as Rs. 90,76,13,532/- as against the originally mentioned amount of Rs. 157,44,46,961/- in first and second Return of Income's. Vide order dated 29/12/2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion or wrong statement. According to him, the revision of income because of revision of accounts under Companies Act is highly objectionable, and as per scheme of taxation, preparation of accounts one for Companies Act and other for Income Tax Act is not permissible. learned DR, therefore, places heavy reliance on the observations of the learned Assessing Officer and submits that the original return of income dated 29/09/2009 and revised return dt. 04/05/2010 were filed as per the annual results and audited books of accounts since the sales declared in these returns are same, whereas in the subsequent return filed on 01/09/2010, the assessee reduced the sales from Rs. 157,44,46,969/- to Rs. 90,76,13,532/-, which means the assessee deviated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revised return on 06.06.2011, correcting income due to a CIT(A) order clarifying that income during the construction period isn't taxable and should be netted with the expenditure. According to him, even though the return was filed after the due date, it was based on the CIT(A)'s order and is valid as a claim in a revised return. He placed reliance on the decisions like CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers in support of his contention justifying the validity of claims in revised returns. He argued that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the revised claim, and it is well within his jurisdiction being the first appellate authority. He further argued that since the learned Assessing Officer did not issue a notice under section 143(2) after the third and fourth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee and completing the assessment, learned Assessing Officer based on first Revised Return of Income dated 04/05/2010, and did not consider the subsequent revised returns. According to the learned Assessing Officer, assessee deviated from the audited books of accounts while filing the 2nd revised Return of Income on 01/09/2010 and that the reduction of sales cannot be claimed as omission or wrong statement within the meaning of Sec 139(5) of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer returned a finding that the Return of Income filed on 06/06/2011 does not merit consideration since it was filed beyond the time limits prescribed under law. 9. According to the learned CIT(A), learned Assessing Officer taking into account the Second Revised Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n rendered in Lok Housing & Construction Limited and DCIT vs Kamadhenu Builders and Developers also. 10. In light of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements cited, what falls for our consideration in this appeal is, can the learned Assessing Officer disregard a revised return, which is filed before the completion of assessment proceedings, and deny a claim made by the assessee in the subsequently revised return of income solely because the claim was not made in the original return of income, even though the original return was filed within the due date and the revised return complies with all the conditions for the deduction? 11. In the case of Lok Housing & Construction Limited the Mumbai Bench of ITAT clearly held that,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim; that there is no requirement under the law for the claim to be made in the original return, and as long as the revised return was filed before the completion of the assessment, it should be accepted, and that the learned Assessing Officer has no valid grounds to deny the claim. 13. We, therefore, find force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the learned Assessing Officer erred in not considering the information that was filed with the revised Return of Income before the completion of the assessment in making the final assessment, and in accordance with the established legal principles, the learned Assessing Officer is required to examine and take into account the details provided in the most recent ROI, even if ....