Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Vinod Kumar Khatri vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 November, 2015Matching Fragments
coercion.
16. The ITAT negatived the principal contention of the Assessee that since the original return was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act, the Assessee could not have validly revised the return under Section 139 (5) of the Act. The ITAT noted that the original return was filed on 31st August 1992, i.e., within the due date prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act. The return subsequently filed on 19th January 1993 was only to rectify the defects pointed out by the AO under Section 139 (9) of the Act. After having rectified the defects, the return would relate back to the date of the original filing, i.e., 31 st August 1992. Therefore, the Assessee was competent to file the revised return under Section 139 (5) of the Act and it could have been taken cognizance by the AO.
23. Consequent upon the above order dated 3rd September 2012, the present appeal was revived. On 28th January 2013, the following questions were framed for consideration:
"1. Whether the return filed on 30th March 1994 is a valid revised return?
2. If the answer to question (1) above is in the negative, whether the surrender made in that return dated 30th March 1994 can be regarded as a piece of evidence?
3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could have relied on a purported statement made by the Assessee under Section 132 (4) when the Tribunal specifically noted that the statement was not available on the record?
Conclusion
37. For the above reasons, the Court answers Question No. 1 in the affirmative and holds that the revised return filed on 31st March 1994 was a valid return. In that view of the matter, Question No. 2 does not arise. Question No. 3 it is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The ITAT did not commit any error in relying on the statement made by the Assessee under Section 132 (4) of the Act.
38. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.