TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the decisions relied upon by the Revenue is applicable on the facts of the assessee’s case. Thus when the assessee was not entitled to sale proceed of land, obviously, tax cannot be levied on such receipt from the sale of land. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to consider the revised return furnished by the assessee - against revenue. - ITA No.3066/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2013 - G.D. Agrawal and Chandra Mohan Garg, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Mrs Sudha Kumari, CIT-DR Respondent Rep by: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. ORDER Per: G.D. Agrawal: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 24th February, 2012 for the AY 2008-09. 2. The only ground raised by the Revenue reads as under:- On the facts and on the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to accept the revised return. 3. At the time of hearing 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 disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) dated 24.08.2010. In the original return filed, the assessee had disclosed profit of Rs.9,73,36,034/- on sale of land for total consideration of Rs.20,55,78,119/- on 11.02.2008. The plot, measuring 25772 sq. meters of freehold land and 13238 sq. meters of leasehold land, situated near Baroda, originally belonged to Ambika Mills Ltd., a company under liquidation. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court constituted a committee for the disposal of the assets of the company in liquidation, consisting of nationalized banks, financial institutions, central excise department etc. headed by the Official Liquidator as Chairman. On the basis of the report of the Official Liquidator and the open bid in the Court, the highest bid of Rs.14.30 crores made by M/s Bheruji Estate, was accepted by the Court by order dated 23.12.2003. As the auction purchaser s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to revise its return on the basis of events which had occurred after the close of the previous year relevant to AY 2008-09 as it followed the cash system of accounting. It was held that effect of the Court order of 09.03.2009 could only be reflected in the AY 2009-10. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) accepted the assessee s contention and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the revised return which has been filed within 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, 2008 which was furnished unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts maintained on mercantile basis. However, the assessee filed the revised return disclosing the income on cash basis. The Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held the same to be not permissible because there was no omission or wrong statement in the original return. In the case of Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), in the revised return, the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation made in the original return. Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the revised return to withdraw the claim of depreciation is not valid. Similar were the facts in the case of Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd. (No.2) (supra) where the assessee filed the revised return for withdrawing the claim of depreciation which was held to be not permissible. In the case of Shree Pipes Limited (supra), the issue before the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court was applicability of Section 41(1) because the assessee has written off interest in the books of account. However, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court held that on these facts, Section 41(1) would not be applicable. Thus, none of the decisions relied upon by the Revenue is applicable on the facts of the assessee s case. In the case under ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
