TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39(5) which entitles an assessee to furnish a revised return if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the original return hitherto filed, however the very fact that, for the impugned assessment year, this right or entitlement of revision was given to an assessee who has filed his original return either u/s 139(1) or in pursuance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, this by necessary implication means that, such a right was denied and not at all available to the assessee who has filed the return u/s 139(4) this view has been historically held in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha Vs CIT [ 1996 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus, in the case before us, the appellant filed his original return otherwise than u/s 139(1) or 142(1), the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-Tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ], which ascended out of regular assessment order dt. 26/03/2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by Asstt. CIT, Circle-13, Pune [for short AO ], for assessment year [for short AY ] 2012-13. 2. The solitary dispute contested by the present appeal spins around the validity of revised return filed vis-a-vis claims made thereunder, where the original return of income was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act. 3. Before travelling to facts, it s necessary to reproduce the grounds assailed by the appellant as; 1. The learned CIT(A)-8, Pune erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned ACIT, Circle-13, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) in not considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain etc., has for AY 2012-13 e-filed his Income Tax Return [for short ITR ] u/s 139(4) on 28/02/2014 declaring total taxable income of ₹ 1,28,93,465/- which subsequent e-filing revised to ₹ 31,06,517/- on 18/03/2014 for the reason of change in capital gain computation. When the case of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny by service of notice dt. 04/09/2014 u/s 143(2) of the Act, the authorised representative appearing for the assessee [for short AR ] made written submissions and put forth detailed reasoning and circumstances which led to filing of incorrect belated return of income vis- -vis revised return. Considering the factual matrix evidential material laid in the course of regular assessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andra Sinha Vs CIT reported in 220 ITR 67 (SC) vehemently argued that, the circumstances which led to filing of both the returns and the evidential material placed by the appellant were duly considered examined by the Ld. AO in finalising regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act hence, there remains no cloud in the sky for altering the real income actually earned reported by the appellant in his belated return and rightly assessed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ITAT, Rules ] perused the material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act became non-est in the eyes of law, consequently the claim of capital loss made by the appellant in his revised return. 10. In so far as the second question is concerned, it is abundantly clear that, the evidential documents as regards to re-computation of capital loss were duly placed before the Ld. AO during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and after considering them, the assessment was culminated assessing the taxable income in terms of belated return, consequently it concludes that, the income actually earned by the appellant as verified from the records was taxed and not the unreal income, and nothing contrary has shown to us in the present facts which would warrant taking a diverse view. In omnibus, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
