9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before us, it is stated by the learned CITDR that under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee can file the revised return only if there is omission or mistake in the original return. In this case, the assessee filed the original return disclosing the income of Rs.5,36,83,629/-. Subsequently, the return was revised showing nil income. That there was no mistake or omission in the original return, therefore, the revised return was not a valid return. She also stated that the order of the Hon'ble High Court was in the next financial year. That the events occurring after the close of the financial year 2008 cannot be considered for determining the income of the FY 2007-08. That the assessee is following the cash system of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ains tax did not arise. To that extent, there was an omission in the original return in which profit from sale of land was offered and, therefore, the same was revised in accordance with law within the time limit prescribed in the Income-tax Act. In support of this contention, he also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rana Polycot Ltd. - 347 ITR 466 (P&H). 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 30.07.2008 disclosing an income of Rs.5,36,83,629/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return showing nil income on 19.09.2009. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s i.e. M/s Bheruji Estate and Shri Manubhai M.Patel. The consent terms between the disputing parties were taken on record by the Hon'ble Appellate Court, and final order was passed on 23.01.2008 disposing of the appeal by M/s Bheruji Estate. In the meantime, on 29.10.2007, the Official Liquidator executed the sale deed of the freehold land in favour of Shri Manubhai M.Patel. On 11.02.2008, a registered sale deed was executed by Shri Manubhai M.Patel as vendor, M/s Dexterity Developers as confirming party and M/s Sentia Infrastructures Ltd., as purchaser for a consideration of Rs.55,67,78,119/-, out of which Rs.21,60,28,119/- was to be received by the assessee. Subsequently, one of the original bidders of the auction sale of 2003, Shri Jayes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time and within the four corners of law. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), is in appeal before us. 7. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. Section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961 reads as under:- "If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, 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." 8. In this case, the assessee had filed the original return on 30th July, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the method of accounting followed by the assessee being cash. However, after the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, when the assessee is not entitled to any profit from the sale of land, the nature of the amount received from the buyer of the land cannot be considered as sale proceed or profit in the hands of the assessee but its nature would be only an amount received in trust which is to be refunded by the assessee as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High court in the same order has issued necessary direction for the refund of amount. Even in the cash method of accounting, every receipt is not the income but the receipt which is in the nature of income is liable to be assessed as income. 9. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed of land. When the assessee was not entitled to sale proceed of land, obviously, tax cannot be levied on such receipt from the sale of land. Therefore, there was omission in the original return wherein such sale proceed of land was offered as income. In view of the above, in our opinion, the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return furnished by the assessee. 10. Before we part with the matter, we may point out that at the time of hearing before us, it was also argued by the learned CIT-DR that the assessee has not accepted the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and has challenged it in appeal, therefore, if subsequently the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
