Case Law Details
Vijay Channabasav Suttatti Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
Income Tax Return revision right under section 139(5) was denied and not at all available to assessee who has filed belated return under section 139(4).
The adjudication for the impugned assessment year shall rest on answering two blatant questions; (a) whether income reported by filing belated return filed can be varies by filing revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act? And (b) whether income reported under belated return can be varied on the pretext of its un-realisation or unearned for any good and sufficient reasons?
In answering the aforestated first question “(a)”, it is enough to state that, the provisions relating to furnishing of a revised return is provided u/s 139(5) of the Act, 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) of the Act, this view has been historically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in much celebrated case of “Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha Vs CIT” (Supra). Thus, in the case before us, the appellant filed his original return otherwise than u/s 139(1) or 142(1), the revised return filed u/s 139(5) 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.
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 find no substance in the claim of the appellant vis-a-vis no infirmity with the order of tax authorities below to deviate, ita ground number 1 to 4 raised stand dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
