9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the returns filed by the assessee could be revised later on by claiming a loss in certain business which was not disclosed or claimed in the original returns filed. 2. The validity of filing a revised return under section 139(5) when the original return was filed under section 139(4). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the returns filed by the assessee could be revised later on by claiming a loss in certain business which was not disclosed or claimed in the original returns filed: The assessee filed original returns for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 under section 139(4) and later attempted to file revised returns under section 139(5) claiming losses from a Mushroom business. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) ignored these revised returns, deeming them invalid because they were filed after the completion of assessments and the original returns were filed under section 139(4). The ITO's stance was that a return filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised under section 139(5). This view was supported by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and contested by the assessee, who cited various judicial precedents to argue that the revised returns should be considered valid. 2. The validity of filing a revised return under section 139(5) when the original return was filed under section 139(4): The primary legal contention revolved around whether section 139(5) permits the revision of a return originally filed under section 139(4). The assessee argued that it is permissible to revise claims even without filing a revised return, citing precedents that allow for new claims or withdrawal of claims during assessment or appellate stages. The Departmental Representative countered this by asserting that the law does not permit the revision of a return filed under section 139(4) using section 139(5), and any claims made in such a revised return should be disregarded. The Tribunal considered various judicial decisions, noting that the views of different High Courts were not uniform. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Mst. Zulekha Begum (Khatoon) v. CIT, implied that a subsequent return filed under section 139(4) could be considered valid if the ITO accepted it without objection. Conversely, the Delhi High Court, in O.P. Malhotra v. CIT, categorically stated that section 139(5) does not apply to returns filed under section 139(4), and thus such returns cannot be revised under section 139(5). The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the revised returns filed by the assessee under section 139(5) were invalid since the original returns were filed under section 139(4). The Tribunal emphasized that the filing of a revised return under section 139(5) is only permissible for returns initially filed under section 139(1) or 139(2), not under section 139(4). Consequently, the claims made in the revised returns could not be considered, and the original returns retained their validity. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the revenue authorities, confirming that the revised returns filed by the assessee under section 139(5) were invalid due to the original returns being filed under section 139(4). The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, reinforcing the legal principle that a return filed under section 139(4) cannot be revised under section 139(5).
|
