Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd {191 ITR 156}, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that once the original return is withdrawn or is substituted, by filing a valid revised return, the natural consequence is that the earlier return would be effaced or obliterated for all purposes under the Act.

19. In Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd {201 ITR 101}, another Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, quoted with approval, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Arun Textile {192 ITR 700}, to the effect that once a revised return is filed under Section 139(5), the original return is substituted by the revised return and that therefore it is not open to the Income Tax Officer to advert to the original return or the statement filed along with it.

41. Therefore the scheme of the Act as seen from the various provisions quoted above, appears to be to give a long rope to an assessee to make payment, before attachment or garnishee orders. Such rope may even be around his neck, so as to safeguard the interests of revenue, but shall not be tight enough to strangulate him. It is in the context of such leverage granted to the assessees that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 may now have to be tested.

42. The orders of attachment and garnishee notices in the present case, issued on the basis of the admitted liability as per the original return filed on 30.9.2008, may have been validly issued, before the date of filing of the revised return, on 6.3.2009, treating the petitioner as an assessee in default by virtue of Section 140-A(3). But after the revised return was filed, the admitted tax liability was different from what it was under the original return.

43. The respondents have now taken a stand, in the impugned order and the counter affidavit, that the revised return is not worth the piece of paper on which it is written. In the revised return, the petitioner has chosen to switch over to a different system of accounting, which is not acceptable to the respondents, even at the threshold. Therefore according to the respondents, the revised return is not a valid return under Section 139(5). Moreover, it is the contention of the respondents that a revised return is permissible only to correct an omission or a wrong statement and not to change the system of accounting. Therefore in effect, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken a position, that the revised return is not valid in law.