9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4B of the Act, in the said, revised return of income which is not a valid return of income in the eyes of law. In view of the above facts and the plain language of the Statute, as it stood at the relevant time, which did not permit the assessee to revise a belated return of income, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Decided against assessee. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Manish J. Shah Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs. For the Respondent : Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR ORDER PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per the revised return had not been considered by the AO. In response, the DCIT accepted the assessee s contention and passed a rectification order under section 154 on May 6, 2016, allowing the deduction under section 54B. Subsequently, due to a change in the officer in charge, the new AO reviewed the records and found that the assessee had filed the return in response to the notice under section 153A after the prescribed 45-day period. The AO was of the view that since the return under section 153A was filed belatedly, it replaced the original return filed under section 139(1), and as per the Income Tax Act, no revised return could be filed under section 153A once the proceedings under that section had commenced. The AO further was of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 54B was considered by the Ld. CIT(A) as a debatable issue and therefore, not a mistake apparent from the record, and thus could not be rectified under section 154. Ld. CIT(Appeals) further held that the AO the revised return while finalizing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. The rectification order passed by the DCIT was found to be void, as it was based on a debatable issue that could not be corrected through a rectification order under section 154 of the Act. The assessee's reliance on case laws was also found to be unhelpful due to the material differences in the facts of the cases cited. In the result, the action of the AO in passing the rectification order under section 154 on November 10, 2016, was upheld by L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port the assessee's contention that claims made before the completion of the assessment, even if they were not included in the original return, are allowable. The assessee also highlighted that the earlier AO had accepted the claim made in the revised return, and had only made a statistical error by considering the income as per the original return instead of the revised one. This error was rectified promptly by the earlier AO. The new AO, however, complicated the matter by focusing on the technicality of the validity of the revised return filed under section 153A, thereby denying the assessee the benefit of the claim. Moreover, the Counsel for the assessee CIT-A overlooked the fact that the claim was made before the completion of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, if the same suffers from a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the Ld. DR that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 8. On going through the facts of the case, we observe that it is an admitted fact that the assessee had filed belated return in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the return filed under section 153A of the Act has replaced the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The law, as it stood at the relevant time provided that a belated return, though valid, could not be revised in terms of section 139(5) of the Act. Before us, the Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.10.2013 is a valid return or not, since, even if, it is accepted the same to be a valid return of income, the assessee had not claimed exemption under section 54B of the Act in the said return. The issue for consideration before us is whether the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 30.03.2014, revising the belated return dated 10.10.2013 can be said to be a valid return of income under section 139(5) of the Act. We are of the considered view that since the belated return, (even if deemed to be valid) cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the Act then the assessee also cannot claim benefit of section 54B of the Act, in the said, revised return of income which is not a valid return of income in the eyes of law. It would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
