Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in the following terms:-

"6.0 I have gone in detail through the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions etc. The appellant filed voluntarily an original return on 30.9.2008 u/s 139(1), which is well within time and claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the IT Act1961. The original return filed on 30.9.2008 was revised on 12.2.2009, claiming deduction u/s 80-IA from industrial park and SEZs amounting to Rs.20,45,047/-. Again the return was revised on 5.1.2010, in which the appellant claimed deduction u/s 10B of Rs.22, 72,275/-. The A.O in his order stated that though the original return was revised within specified time, yet made an addition' because the appellant was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act 1961 as he did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in that section. Therefore, it would be prudent to first discuss whether the appellant would be eligible for such a claim of deduction or not or whether the revised return filed by the appellant on 5.1.2010 claiming deduction u/s 10B in such revised return is a valid return or not.

In view of the above discussion, it is seen that the revised return filed voluntarily by the appellant on 5.1.2010 is a valid return to be taken into account for assessment u/s143(3) for AY. 2008-09 and the original return filed on 30.9.2008 becomes infructuous and redundant.

6.2 In the revised return dated 5.1.2010, the appellant rectified and substituted the section under which he was eligible to claim deduction. Therefore as per the discussion held above, the original return stands withdrawn as infructuous and the revised return dated 5.1.2010 is a valid one because during the ongoing assessment proceedings u/s 143, the AO. did not detect any concealment of income prior to the revision of revised return dated 12.2.2008 on 5.1.2010. In the interim period between 12.2.2008 to 5.1.2010, if the AO. had detected any concealed income, or any fact that has been proved false, the appellant's revised return filed on 5.1.2010 would have been held infructuous. In the revised return dated 5.1.2010, the wrong claim made under a non-eligible section was revised and corrected to avail the benefit provided by law. Therefore, this mistake seems to be bonafide and unintentional to cause any lose to the revenue, due to the fact that the appellant registered himself as 100% EOU only to avail such a benefit. The relevant provisions of section10B are reproduced here as under: