TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PCIT is seeking to revise the assessment completed u/s 143(3) which stems from the return of income filed u/s 139(1) - For doing so, PCIT states that the revised return of income has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) and the same is non est. This statement of the PCIT in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 is factually incorrect. The revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act dated 07.03.2019 is well within the time limited prescribed and the same is not non est. In the case of CIT v. Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Limited [ 1991 (1) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had held that when the assessee files a valid revised return, it completely effaces and obliterates the original return, and therefore, it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. It was submitted that the assessee had filed original return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act on 06.09.2017 and subsequently it was revised u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act within the time limited prescribed on 07.03.2019. It was submitted that the assessment completed on 28.11.2019 stems from the original return filed on 06.09.2017. In this context, it was contended that the revised return filed on 07.03.2019 effaces and obliterates original return and only revised return is to be taken into account for the purpose of making assessment. Therefore, it was contended that the assessment order dated 28.11.2019 which stems out of the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act is bad in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the I.T.Act. For doing so, the PCIT states that the revised return of income has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act and the same is non est. This statement of the PCIT in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 is factually incorrect. The revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act dated 07.03.2019 is well within the time limited prescribed and the same is not non est. 5. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Limited (supra) had held that when the assessee files a valid revised return, it completely effaces and obliterates the original return, and therefore, it is only the revised return that has to be taken into account for the purpose of assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
