Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the backdrop of the facts stated above and having regard to the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the alleged revised Return of Income has no locus standi, considering the statutory parameters prescribed in the relevant Section.

The above view gathers support from the following judicial rulings, CIT v/s Andhra Cottons Mills Limited (219 ITR 404 (AP)) and Sunanda Ram Deka v/s CIT (210 ITR 988 (Gauhati)). In both these rulings, the Hon'ble High Courts have unequivocally and famously held that, ".... We find that under s. 139(5), a revised return could be filed if there is an omission or a wrong statement...." CIT v/s Andhra Cottons Mills Limited and "....For a valid revised return under s. 139(5) it is necessary that omission or wrong statement in the original return must be due to a bona fide inadvertence or mistake on the part of the assessee...." - Sunanda Ram Deka v/s CIT.

As discussed in the comments regarding the Second Issue, the assessment proceedings finalised u/s 153C rw.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.03.2016, are independent proceedings and there should not be conjoint reading of assessment proceedings finalised u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 30.12.2011. Further, as discussed in the opening paragraph of this submission, the so-called revised Return of Income was not a valid Return of M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd Income, and therefore the issue of nature of Compensation for Short Fall in Guaranteed Performancereceived was never part of assessment proceedings finalised on 30.12.2011 and 29.03.2016, before the Assessing Officers. As a result, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, was very much within the statutory powers vested in him to invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.03.2016, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as income of Rs.22,22,18,000/- on account of Compensation for Short Fall in Guaranteed Performancewas not subject to tax. Therefore, the objection raised by the Assessee on this premise is devoid of merits.