Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Kailashbhai Ambalal Shah, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 10 June, 2008Matching Fragments
2.3 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the revised return was neither valid nor filed for a bona fide omission.
2.4 The observations made and conclusion reached by the CIT(A) so as to confirm the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are not admitted by the appellant in so far as the same are contrary to the facts on record or prejudicial to the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are that assessee is earning income from interest and share from partnership firm. He filed return of income on 30.11.2006 showing total income at Rs.3,60,800/-. It was processed under section 143(1). In this return assessee had shown interest income of Rs.129/- only. Subsequently the AO received information from Bank of Baroda as a part of routine annual information return (AIR in short) filed by the bank for Financial Year 2005-06 wherein it was found that assessee had received interest income of Rs.4,46,379/- during this year. The AO had also picked up the case for scrutiny assessment by issuing notices under section 143(2) on 26/6/07. Further notice under section 142(1) was issued on 7.4.2008. On the basis of annual information return received from Bank of Baroda, the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 12.5.2008 whose relevant part is reproduced below :-
A valid revised return could be filed only upto 31.3.08.
(4) The so called revised return was filed after the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 12.5.08. The assessee has not disclosed material fact regarding his FDR investment and interest thereon in the original return and assessee has not proved that there was any bona fide in not making such declaration.
5. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the following judgments -
III. Another issue raised by the ld. AR is whether return filed by the assessee on 10.6.08 can be said to be revised return? In our considered view the return filed under section 139(5) alone can be said to be a revised return. Since time limit for filing return under section 139(5) had expired on 31.3.08 the return filed on 10.6.08 cannot be validly called a revised return. Hon. Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Singh vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 67 has held that returns filed beyond time prescribed under section 139(5) cannot be treated valid in law and cannot be acted upon as revised return as contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 139.