9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 30.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 19,03,485/-. Subsequently assessee on 13.02.2016 revised its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 5,50,420/-. The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs. 19,03,490/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 14.01.2019 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-3/Wd 3(4), Pn/308/2017-18) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds : "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent evidence brought on record by the A.O. to demonstrate as o how the total income declared by the assessee as per the revised return was not correct, the A.O. could not have rejected the revised income solely on the basis of the earlier original return filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) which was subsequently revised by the assessee u/s 139(5) and thus, the action of the A.O. was not justified in law." 3. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that assessee had revised the original return of income by revising the total income declaring therein. The reason for revising the return of income was stated to be considering the wrong figure of sales for computi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had explained about the necessity for revising the return of income. He further submitted that to substantiate the actual quantum of sales, assessee had produced the entire record along with sales bills before the AO. The AO after having satisfied herself on the basis of verification made on test check basis, did not ask the assessee to substantiate sales declared by the assessee in the revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act. He submitted that there is no material before the Department to demonstrate that the sales declared by the assessee in the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act is not correct. He submitted that once a valid return u/s 139(5) of the Act is filed by the assessee then the original return u/s 139(1) of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.10.2015 by declaring total income at Rs. 19,03,485/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 13.02.2016 wherein the total income was revised at Rs. 5,50,420/-. The last date to file the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16 was 31.03.2016. It is also a fact that the revised return of income filed by the assessee was within the prescribed time limit prescribed under the Act. It is also a fact that the revised return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. I find that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers reported in [191 ITR 156 (Kar)] has held that once the original return is withdrawn or is substituted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
