TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial to the interest of revenue as rightly held by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263. Thus, the order of Pr. CIT is justified and grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No.1691/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2020 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Pramod Shingte For the Revenue : Shri Asif A. Karmali ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14-02-2017 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Aurangabad passed u/s. 263 of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue arises for our consideration is as to whether the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. The Pr. CIT is of the opinion that the amendment u/s. 139(5) of the Act will apply prospectively and held the Assessing Officer committed an error in considering the revised return and also failed to make necessary enquiries required before passing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and set aside the order of Assessing Officer dated 16-11-2014 by holding it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. Before us, the ld. AR, Shri Pramod Shingte submitted that the Pr. CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction u/s. 263 on non-est return of income and argued it is legal issue. In view of the revised return of income filed the original return of income filed on 30-03-2013 becomes non-est. He submits that the order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to process the same. The Pr. CIT rightly held that the amendment to section 139(5) of the Act will apply prospectively and it is not applicable to the case on hand. The ld. DR supported the order of Pr. CIT and prayed to uphold the same. 7. We note that the assessee filed paper book containing pages 1 to 93 wherein it is noted copies of details of improvement and purchase deeds and sale deeds were reflecting from pages 32 to 81 of the paper book. The contention of ld. AR is that the assessee entitled to claim cost of improvement and exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The contention of Pr. CIT is that the AO cannot exercise jurisdiction to process the revised return of income. Admittedly, the assessee declared the total income of ₹ 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the assessee did not file original return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act and therefore, if at all the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement is not entitled to file revised return of income for the year under consideration. 10. The ld. AR for the assessee has contended that the revised return was invalid and non-est in the eye of law and even the assessment made by the AO in pursuance to the said return was invalid and non-est and the CIT(A) was not empowered to revise the same u/s. 263 of the Act. In support of which he relied on the order of Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
