Gunapalan Mallinathan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Conclusion: AO was directed to consider the original return while deciding the case involving disallowance of excess deductions and house property loss claimed in revised returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as the revised return had been filed by the assessee based on the wrong guidance of the tax advisors and had been brought to the notice of the AO.
Held: Assessee was an ex-employee of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL). For the assessment year 2020-21, he filed his return on 26.06.2020, declaring an income of ₹20,86,760 after claiming deductions and house property loss. On 22.05.2021, he filed two revised returns on the same day, showing lower incomes by increasing deductions and house property loss, which resulted in refund claims. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and AO asked for proof of the claims. Assessee failed to submit any documents and later requested to ignore the revised returns. AO disallowed the excess deductions and house property loss and assessed the income at ₹25,57,969. Assessee appealed before CIT(A), which dismissed the appeal. CIT (A) upheld AO’s findings, enhanced the disallowances, and observed that revised claims were inflated and unsupported by evidence. On appeal before Tribunal. Assessee argued that CIT (A) had wrongly confirmed the additions for excess deductions under Chapter VI-A and disallowed the house property loss. He requested the original return be considered instead of the revised returns and stated that the issue was already covered in favour of the assessee by Tribunal’s order in Ramesh Venkateswamy vs. ITO (ITA No.1068/CHNY/2024) dated 26.07.2024. Revenue contended that CIT (A)’s order was correct, well-reasoned, and supported by facts and law, and argued that the appeal should be dismissed. It was held that in the case of Ramesh Venkataswamy in ITA No.1068/CHNY/2024 (order dated 26.07.2024), assessee was an individual and having a salary income and filed the original return of Income based on the Form 16 issued by employer. However, the revised return had been filed by the assessee based on the wrong guidance of the tax advisors and which had been brought to the notice of the AO, during the assessment proceedings and also prayed for considering the original return filed U/s.139(1) for assessment by ignoring the revised return of income filed. Therefore, it was deemed fit to set aside the order of CIT(A) and AO was directed to accept the original return filed by the assessee and re compute the income in accordance with law..
