TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (12) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the original return declaring an income of Rs. 1,35,513 was the only valid return. (2) That the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the subsequent revised return filed by the assessee on 11th May, 1978 declaring an income of Rs. 76,370 substituted the original return under s. 139(4) of the Act. (3) That the ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as in fact that the ld. ITO first completed the income on the basis of the revised return and arrived at a total income of Rs. 1,02,066 and thereafter suddenly switched over to originally returned income of Rs. 1,35,513 on technical ground that return filed under s. 139(4) could not be revised. (4) That the ld. CIT (A) having rightfully held tha the assessee can always contend that he income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss profit rate of 4.5 per cent and revised the return accordingly. This factor has not been properly considered by the ld. CIT (A). (7) That the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the purpose why the ld. ITO himself started computing the total income on the basis of the revised return and in arriving at an income of Rs. 1,02,571. (8) That the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the findings given by the learned ITO in para-2 of his order dt. 26th Feb., 1979 under s. 143(3) where the ld. ITO held that by application of gross profit rate the net profit has been properly determined as he had verified the details of expenses. (9) That the ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as in fact in confirming a sum of Rs. 7000 as unexplained cash credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed the reversed return well before the assessment in its case stood completed; also that the lower authorities have misconceived the fact of the case in presuming that the receipt of Rs. 10,000 was earlier to the payment of Rs. 10,000 as on 20th Oct., 1974 while working out the peak deposits in the case of the assessee and treating the same as in of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal. The said income having been worked out at Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3,140, taking the peak deposits at Rs. 1,54,766. The assessee claims that both the entries i.e., that of the receipts and payments at Rs. 10,000 each on the same date i.e., on 20th Oct., 1974 being not capable of being deciphered as to which of the two is an earlier one, the bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above facts as the background, the in was computed in the case of the assessee first by taking the net profit as per profit & loss account at Rs.76,370 and after making disallowance a figure of Rs. 1,02,066 was worked out. Again a fresh work out taking the base figure as at Rs. 1,85,513 was taken and income recomputed and finally worked out to Rs. 2,46,653. The ITO observed as under: "The assessee has 'disclosed income of Rs. 1,35,513 in the original return filed under s. 139(4) however, assessee revised the original return on the basis of which the above computation is made. Since return under s. 139(4) cannot be revised disclosed income of Rs. 1,35,513 is taken here for assessment." 6. We have heard the ld. Authorised representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the total expenses as per books of account, as against the return filed originally by the assessee by applying a net profit rate on the total turnover. The revised return of the assessee has been subjected to test check and income has been computed on that basis after making necessary add backs/disallowances. The ITO has observed that the net profit on the basis on which the revised return was filed was properly determined yet he has for no reasons chosen to compute the income on the basis of original return and taking the base figure at Rs. 1,35,513, which on the facts of the assessee's case was not warranted. 7. Since the return filed by the assessee as a revised return meets the requirements of law as a revised return the base figu....