TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been accepted by the AO 2) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in the revised return of income, the loss from trading in F&O was correctly set off against other incomes and/ OR carried forward as normal business loss. Since a revised return substitutes the original return from the date on which the original return was filed, the income/ set off/ losses carried forward ought to have been permitted as offered by the Appellant in revised return of income without the adjustments made by the AO 3) The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that in the revised return, the Appellant had not claimed any new loss which was not claimed in the original return, and hence, the bar under section 139(3) did not apply to the facts of the case 2. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and pertain to the action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer ("AO") rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the treatment and carry forward of business loss as declared in the revised return of income. Since these grounds arise from the same set of facts and involve a common issue, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried forward to future years 1,24,57,323 pg. 54 83,82,855 pg. 103 j. Refund claimed 2,50,010 pg.40 10,35,220 pg. 89 6. From the above comparison, it is evident that the assessee had disclosed the loss arising from F&O transactions even in the original return and had claimed the same for carry forward, albeit under the head of speculative business loss. In the revised return, the assessee did not introduce any fresh or additional loss. Rather, the assessee corrected the nature/classification of the F&O loss by treating the same as non-speculative business loss and consequently recomputed the set-off and the resultant loss eligible for carry forward. Significantly, the aggregate business loss remained substantially the same, being Rs. 1,26,05,069 in the original return and Rs. 1,26,05,073 in the revised return. Further, the amount claimed to be carried forward stood reduced from Rs. 1,24,57,323 in the original return to Rs. 83,82,855 in the revised return. 7. The AO, however, did not accept the treatment adopted by the assessee in the revised return and proceeded to determine the income with reference to the original return. As recorded in paragraph 8 of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the present proceedings. The doctrine of change of opinion is relevant in the context of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and cannot, by itself, be invoked to curtail the statutory right available to an assessee under section 139(5) to revise a return of income for the purpose of correcting an omission or a wrong statement made therein. 13. The more substantial issue, however, relates to the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned CIT(A). 14. On a careful consideration of the said judgment, I find that the facts obtaining in Wipro Ltd. are materially distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In Wipro Ltd., the controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerned the exercise of an option in respect of an exemption provision, namely section 10B(8) of the Act, and the assessee had specifically opted not to claim the exemption in the original return. The claim of exemption was subsequently sought to be made through the revised return. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in that factual and statutory context, held that a revised return under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 139(5), particularly where the assessee seeks to correct an erroneous statement regarding the character of a loss which had already been disclosed in the original return. Therefore, in my considered view, the ratio of Wipro Ltd. (supra) cannot be mechanically extended to the facts of the present case. 20. The assessee has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, reported in 84 taxmann.com 32, in support of the proposition that a validly filed revised return substitutes and completely replaces the original return and has to be considered as such for the purpose of assessment. The said proposition also supports the assessee's contention that, where a revised return is validly filed under section 139(5), the assessment is required to be made after taking into consideration the revised return, subject, of course, to the validity of the revision and the claims made therein. 21. I also find that the other objections raised by the AO do not, in the facts of the present case, provide sufficient justification for disregarding the revised return. The allegation that the revised return was an afterthought merely b....