9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t facts we note that the genuineness of claim put forth by the assessee has not been examined at all by the Revenue. Neither the AO examined the factual aspect regarding the claim of the assessee and neither were the facts examined during the course of appellate proceedings. While, in principle we are in agreement that a validly filed revised return substitutes the original return, but at the same time, in the instant set of facts, the Revenue did not analyse the veracity of the facts/figures on the basis of which the return was revised by the assessee. Therefore, in the instant facts, in the interests of justice, we are setting aside the matter to the file of AO to examine the facts in detail and verify the claim of the assessee in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2013 in which returned income was declared at Rs. 3,04,05,460/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 4,00,05,265/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee noticed that in the accounts, an accounting entry towards purchase amounting to Rs. 3,46,28,750/- remained to be passed and was omitted by the accountant which resulted in the profit being wrongly computed at a higher figure and also an amount of Rs. 31,18,679/- being purchase return was not considered by the accountant though the stock thereof was recorded in accounts. Accordingly, the assessee company filed a revised return by giving effect to the above mistakes. The revised return was filed on 31.03.2014 decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Profit and Loss Account and further that once the accounts have been closed and balance sheet drawn, no variation in the accounts can be allowed. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that once revised return has been filed validly, the legal position in this regard is that the revised return replaces the original return and this position is settled by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Arun Textiles 192 ITR 700 (Gujarat), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 109 Taxman 223 (SC). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed as under while passing the appeal order: I am of the opinion that AO has no jurisdiction to revert to original return once revised return was validly filed. In the instant case, the revised return is validly filed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the AO to accept the figures as per revised return and directing the AO to delete the amount of Rs. 3,46,28,750/- and Rs. 31,18,679/- by reducing the same from the figures declared in the original return by considering the revised return. In response, the counsel for the assessee explained that it is a genuine mistake on account of accounts of the assessee being maintained under separate modules (Finance module and Inventory Module) as a result of which the omission occurred inadvertently. He submitted that even the AO has not challenged the genuineness of the figures given in the revised return. The revised return was filed strictly within the parameters of section 139(5) of the Act and once revised return has been validly filed, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
