9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in holding the revised return of income as valid though the original return of income was filed belatedly, on the pretext that the last date of filing of return of income ie., 30.09.2012, was a general holiday and hence, it was filed on the next working day ie., 01.10.2012, taking support of Board's circular No.639 dated 13.11.1992 and the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of ASPI Ginwala & Ors. in 52 SOT0016 [2012], without appreciating that the conditions stipulated therein, does not apply to returns filed electronically, which is mandatory condition to the assessee as per the provisions of Section 44AB. The learned CIT(A) erred in further giving relief to the assessee w.r.t. depreciation wrongly claimed in the original return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not considered the revised return to be valid revised return for the purpose of completing the assessment and he accordingly made an addition on account of disallowance on depreciation of Rs. 12,84,348/-. It was further contended before the CIT(A) that once the original return is considered to be filed in time, the revised return filed within the due date as prescribed under section 139(4) ought to have been considered and assessment ought to have been framed on the basis of the revised return. But the AO did not take cognizance of the revised return and made certain additions on the basis of the original return after treating it to be belated return. 3. The CIT(A) examined the entire issue in detail in the light of Board's Circular and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) wherein it has been clarified that if the last date of filing of return falls to be on a holiday, the return can be filed on the next working day and in the instant case, undisputedly, the last date of filing of return was 30.09.2012 which is Sunday and the next working day i.e., on Monday 01.10.2012, return was duly filed. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee should be treated a valid return which was duly revised by filing a revised return during the period specified under section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed. 6. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions and the material placed on record, we find that undisputedly the last dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we hold the return filed on 01.10.2012 is a valid return. It is also an undisputed fact that revised return was filed within the period prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the original return filed on 01.10.2012 is duly revised by the filing the revised return within the specified period. Therefore, the AO ought to have been considered the revised return while completing the assessment. But he did not do so. Whereas, the CIT(A) has taken cognizance of the revised return and held that the assessee itself has claimed depreciation on WDV in the revised return. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. So far as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
