1992 (8) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessment ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not in error in concluding that the claim for depreciation in the original return is to be ignored when no claim is made in the revised return filed subsequently? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not in error in concluding that the claim for depreciation is a choice left to the assessee and cannot be allowed when not claimed in the revised return?" The assessee is a company carrying on manufacture of grinders. For the assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76, the assessee filed revised returns whereby withdrew its claim regarding depreciation. The Income-tax Officer, however, allowed depreciation to the assessee as per details furnished by the assessee along with the original retu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asis upon the expression " shall " in the section. On the contrary, Sri K. P. Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the provisions of section 32 are clearly governed by section 34(1), as it stood at the relevant period, which reads thus: "S. 34. (1). The deductions referred to in sub-section (1) or subsection (1A) of section 32 shall be allowed only if the prescribed particulars have been furnished . . . " There cannot be any doubt that allowing of the deductions as provided under section 32 of the Act itself is subject to the provisions of section 34. Here, learned counsel for the assessee laid emphasis upon the requirement under sub-section (1) of section 34 to state that the furnishing of particulars by the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prefer to follow the view of the Bombay High Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The next point for consideration is regarding the effect of a revised return. This aspect has been considered at length by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Arun Textile "C" [1991] 192 ITR 700. It is held that once a revised return is filed under section 139(5), the original return is substituted by the revised return. Consequently, the entries in the relevant column of the original return seeking depreciation cannot be used for any purpose. It is, therefore, not open to the Income-tax Officer to advert to the original returns or the statement filed along with it for the purpose of allowing deductions after such claim was expressly withdrawn under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X