Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In the assessment year 2003-04, the learned Departmental Representative has raised an Additional Ground of appeal, which was hitherto not raised in the Memo of Appeal. By way of Additional Ground, it is challenged that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in treating the revised return filed by the assessee as a valid return under section 139(5) of the Act. The contention raised is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has considered the return as valid merely because the same was filed within the period prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, whereas as per the said section, a return can be revised only on discovery of an omission or a wrong statement in the return originally filed. It is contended that in the instant case there is no omission or wrong statement made by the assessee in the original return. The ld Departmental Representative also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati high Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka v CIT 210 ITR 988 to contend that only a bona fide mistake or omission is contemplated as a requirement for revising a return under section 139(5) of the Act. It has also been contended that section 139(5) of the Act does not contemplate a revision of return meant to rework the income on the basis of a different method of accounting. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High court in the case of Deepnarayan Nagu & Co v. CIT 157 ITR 37 (MP).

"3.15 I have gone through the facts of the case from the assessment order, written submissions of the appellant, the statement of Shri Tukaram J. Naik, the appellant, recorded u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the time of survey as also the remand report of the AO. It is seen that the return of income declaring total income at Rs 1,41,44,010/- was filed on 29.11.2003, which was required to be filed on 31.10.2003 of the relevant assessment year. When pointed out, it was stated that vide F. No. 220/3/2003 ITA-II dated 16.10.2003 reported at 264 ITR (St) 10, the CBDT had extended the date for filing the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 for one month and, therefore, original return of income was filed within time and thus, the appellant was in his rights to revise or re-revise the return within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e. till 31.3.2005. It is undisputed that the revised and re-revised returns were filed on 31.3.2004 and 28.9.2004 respectively. The AO has harped upon the fact that no reasons, whatsoever, have been given while filing the revised or re-revised returns and that in the statement recorded u/s 131, in response to question Nos 20 to 23, the appellant had declared additional unaccounted income of Rs 80 lacs on account of WIP. This statement of the AO does not appear to be correct in so far as the AO has herself reproduced the question Nos 20 to 23 and 27 and answers of the appellant thereto on page 6 of the assessment order, wherein there is no mention of declaration of the amount of Rs 80 lacs by the appellant at the time of survey. There is no declaration of the amount of Rs 80 lacs in response to the question No 21 also, which pertains to the returns filed for the earlier assessment years 2001-02, 2001-02 & 2002-03, wherein the contract receipts were not tallying with the TDS certificates placed on record. It is seen that the amount of Rs 80 lacs had never been declared by the appellant during the course of survey but was included in the original return of income filed on 29.11.2003 for the assessment year under appeal for the working of WIP as extracted vide para 3.3 above. The appellant had also written a letter to the AO that cash system of accounting was the correct method of accounting being followed but he will change the method of accounting to mercantile system after consultation with his advocate. The appellant has given reasons as to why he revised and re-revised the return. It was stated to be on account of oral discussion/agreement made with the then CIT & Addl. CIT that the method of accounting would be changed from cash system to mercantile system and additional amount of Rs 80 lacs would be declared in the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 without claiming credit for any opening WIP. However, it was in scrutiny and the AO computed the opening and closing WIPs and was in the process of making additions of the difference and the cases for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were being reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148, the appellant found himself unduly harassed and he was under no obligation to stick to the agreement and declare the closing WIP as on 31.3.2003 and increase the income by Rs 80 lacs, the appellant revised and re-revised the return which as already stated above, were filed within time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. No discriminating documents had been found from appellant. No self incriminating declaration was made during survey. A return was file declaring an amount of Rs 80 lacs which was revised and re-revised within time on retraction of agreement by the Department. It is trite law that once a valid revised return is filed u/s 139(5) of the Act, it obliterates the original return and the revised return is the only return which could be considered. Reference in this connection is made to the following decisions:-