9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it provides that if any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. Therefore, the return of income filed u/s 139(4) can be revised in the instant case and as such there is no bar in revising the return of income. It is an admitted position that claim has been wrongly made u/s 57 while computing the income under the head income from other sources instead of claiming the same under the head Business income , the return of income originally filed can be revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, claimed deduction under the wrong head. 3. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has misinterpreted Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act in furtherance thereof had treated the revised return as infructuous. 4. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the total addition of Rs. 27,47,508/- to the total income and consequent tax demand created at Rs. 12,63,691/- is, at any rate, excessive and unjust. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground during the course of the hearing. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,11,290/- which was select ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the taxable income in the hands of the assessee and as against the returned income of Rs. 13,11,290/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 40,58,798/- by making addition/disallowance of Rs. 27,47,508/- for the amount of deduction claimed under section 57 and brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As per the Ld. CIT(A), the AO has rightly disallowed the interest under section 57 of the Act. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has also accepted the fact that the claim was wrong and he therefore decided to revised his already belated return to rectify the said mistake and the action of the AO was upheld and disallowance made by the AO was confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r specific details. In response to statutory notices and questionnaire issued, the assessee has filed replied on Income Tax Portal. Addition on account of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961 under the head 'income from other sources': During the year, the assessee has filed ITR-2 showing his rental income, salary and Interest income from Partnership firm and Interest Income and wrongly claimed deduction u/s 57 of Rs. 27,37,508/-. In this regard, the assessee wants to state that the assessee has taken personal loan amounting to Rs. 1,41,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank on 08/06/2013 and 1,50,00,000/- from Development Credit Bank Limited on 31/03/2014. The assessee has invested loan amount in the partnership firm M/s H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me before expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. In our case assessee revised his original return filed before completition of assessment but assessing officer denied our submission merely on the basis that belated return filed u/s 139(4) cannot be revised u/s 139(5). Any mistake which is apparent can be rectified before the completion assessment proceeding. The claim of interest cannot be rejected merely for the facts that the same is claimed under the wrong head which has been corrected by the assessee and acknowledged by the assessing officer. As the return was revised before the completion of the assessment the assessing officer was supposed to consider s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have failed to take cognizance of the amendment which has been brought in by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f A.Y. 2017-18 wherein even a belated return has been allowed to be revised. On merits, it was submitted that the assessee like to contest the findings of the ld CIT(A) as no opportunity was provided to the assessee before arriving at such a finding and the matter may be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide on merits of the case after providing an opportunity to the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR has fairly submitted that there has been a change in the law as brought in by the Finance Act, 2016 which is relevant for the impugned A.Y 2017-18 as pointed out by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
