Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 November, 2014Matching Fragments
8. The assessee has also raised a legal point that penalty cannot be levied by considering the revised return and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons (supra) as well as decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shri Ashray Lal Vs. CIT (supra). We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the Ld. AR, as in those cases the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court was regarding
9|Page Smt. Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal levy of penalty based on the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 whereas in the present case, the revised return was filed as per the provisions of section 139(5). There is a marked difference between the return filed in response to a notice u/s 148 and revised return filed u/s 139(5). In the case of return filed in response to notice u/s 148, the original return filed u/s 139(1) remains intact and does not become nonest. Whereas in the case of revised return filed u/s 139(5), it merges with the original return and for all legal and procedural purposes, the original return cease to exist on filing of a valid revised return. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR cannot be applied in the facts of the present case.