M/s Karle International Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. The Depuuty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

ITA 2738/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7154 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M VIJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: H N KHINCHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 234B; 139(5); 10B; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 2738/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S. KARLE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NO. 151, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE 560 022. PAN: AADCK4886C VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11 (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N. KHINCHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. VIJAY KUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 .01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 01 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4, BANGALORE DATED 14.09.2017 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE ORDER PASSED TO THE EXTENT, IT IS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS) IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. IN ANY CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS E RRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FILED WHILE CONCLUDI NG THE ASSESSMENT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REVI SED RETURN FILED HAVING SUBSTITUTED THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ALL PURP OSES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. THE ORDER PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN MAKES THE ORDER BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT REVISED RETURN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THERE IS REDRAFTING OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTANT AND THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE SAME. ON ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 8 PROPER APPRECIATION OF LAW AND FACTS THE GROUND TAK EN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR REJECTION OF REVISED RETURN I S NOT CORRECT IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE REVISED RETURN BEING VALID, IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH AND THE ASSESSED INCOME COMPUTED RELYING UPON ORIGI NAL RETURN IS TO BE DISREGARDED. 4.1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUNDS THAT I) SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE REVISED RETURN AND NO T IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED II) THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE REV ISED RETURN. III) SUCH INORDINATE DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. IV) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE VARIAT ION OF INCOME IN REVISED RETURN VIS--VIS ORIGINAL RETURN THE ABOVE REASONINGS / FINDINGS ARE NOT ONLY CONTRA RY TO FACTS BUT ALSO LAW APPLICABLEARE TO BE REJECTED IN ENTIRETY. 4.2 THE APPELLANT HAVING RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCT ION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IS TO BE DISREGARDED. 5.1 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN STATING THAT ALTERNATIVELY IF AT THE APPELLATE STAGE REVISED RETURN IS CONSIDERED THEN 10B DEDUCTION SHA LL BE COMPUTED POST SET OFF OF LOSSES OF NON STPI UNIT WITH THE PR OFIT OF STPI UNIT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED RET URN HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE SAME AND ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WITH RESPEC T TO THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT BEING UNDE RTAKING SPECIFIC IS TO BE COMPUTED AS IS, ONLY ON THE PROFITS OF STPI U NIT AND NOT POST SET OFF OF LOSSES OF NON STPI UNIT. THE CONCLUSION/ACTI ON OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS O F LAW ARE TO BE REJECTED IN TOTO AND THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT IS TO BE ACCEPTED. 5.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ERRED IN STATING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT, IF AT ALL COMPUTED SHALL BE ARRIVED AFTER REDUCING THE FREIGHT AND INSURANCE CHARGES FROM EXPORT TURNOVER ONLY AND NOT FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHAT IS REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURN OVER IS ALSO TO BE REDUCED FROM TOTAL TURNOVER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ACTION OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY TO LAW APPLICABLE IS TO BE REJ ECTED. 6. THE APPELLANT ALSO DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO PAY I NTEREST U/S. 234B & 234C. THE INTEREST BEING LEVIED ERRONEOUSLY IS TO B E DELETED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 8 OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPTED, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPTED, THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED BEFORE SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, THE FREI GHT AND INSURANCE CHARGES BE REDUCED FROM BOTH EXPORT TURNOVER AND TH E TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE CALCULATING 10B DEDUCTION AND INTEREST LEVIED BE ALSO DELETED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ON P AGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT RETURN OF I NCOME WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING AN IN COME OF RS. 64,44,560/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 19.03.2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THEREAFTER, HE SU BMITTED THAT IN THE LAST PARA ON PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS N OTED BY THE AO THAT AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.09.20 09, INCOME DECLARED WAS OF RS. 64,44,560/- AND AS PER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 19.03.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A LOSS OF RS. 1,83,62,408/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF SUCH LOSS IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE SAME. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U /S. 10B OF IT ACT AND THIS MISTAKE WAS NOTICED LATER ON AND THEREFORE, THE REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. AFTER NOTING THESE FACTS, THE LD. AO HA S NOTED THE FIGURES OF VARIOUS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ETC. AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN AND REVISED RETURN ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH EREAFTER ON PAGE NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE RE ARE LOT OF DIFFERENCES IN THE COMPUTATION OF BOTH THE RETURNS AND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ONLY FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. THE AO HELD THAT AS PER THE COMPARISON OF THE VARIO US FIGURES AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN AND REVISED RETURN, IT IS SEEN THAT NET PROFIT ITSELF IS TAKEN AS STARTING POINT IN COMPUTATION IS DIFFERENT SHOWING THAT THERE IS REDRAFTING OF THE WHOLE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ONLY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 10B IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THERE SEEMS TO BE REDRAFTING OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THERE FORE, ON THIS BASIS HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B AND HE COMPUTED THE INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 8 THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED WITHIN TIME AND REVIS ED RETURN WAS ALSO FIELD WITHIN THE PERMITTED TIME U/S. 139(5), THE AO SHOUL D HAVE ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN AS VALID RETURN AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, HE SHOULD HAVE COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SU BMITTED THAT SINCE THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE AO, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO / CIT(A). THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER GROUND NO. 2.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A), THIS WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN FIL ED WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN PARA 5.2 OF HIS ORDER AND IN PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER, HE HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF REMAND REPOR T. IN PARA 5.4 OF HIS ORDER, LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARA 5.4 FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5.4 THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS, THE CONTENTS OF THE REMA ND REPORT AND THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE HAVE BEEN D ULY PERUSED. I DO NOT FIND MYSELF N AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT'S ST AND FOR THE REASONS SUMMARISED AS UNDER:- THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE FACT THAT, THE ASSESSEE' S ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.09.2009, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 64.44,560/-. IT WAS ONLY AFTER A LAPS E OF MORE THAN ONE AND HALF YEAR, THAT, A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED AT A LOSS OF RS. 1,83,62,408/-ALONG WITH A FRESH CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE I.T.ACT, ON 19.03.2011. T HE ASSESSEE MADE NO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B IN IT S ORIGINAL RETURN, WHICH WAS HOWEVER SOUGHT AFTER SUC H A LONG-GAP OF TIME, WITHOUT A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIO N FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY. ALTHOUGH. THERE IS NO LEGAL BAR O N FILING OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE STIPULATED TI ME-LIMIT, IT REMAINS CRUCIAL FOR THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINE NESS OF THE REASONS, WHICH OUGHT TO BE DULY JUSTIFIED BY TH E ASSESSEE, IN THE NORMAL COURSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS QU ITE- APPARENTLY FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD, SUBSTANTIAL M ATERIAL- FACTS, TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR INITIAL OMISSION, AND SUBSEQUENT BELATED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. THE AO HAS ELABORATELY BROUGHT FORTH IN THE IMPUGNE D ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 8 ORDER THE NUMEROUS DEVIATIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT . IN THE KEY-FIGURES OF THE P&L ACCOUNT, REFLECTED IN THE OR IGINAL VIZ-A-VIZ THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE NET-PRO FIT DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAS BEEN DRASTICALL Y REDUCED TO THE LOSS OF (-) RS. 5,74,814/- AS AGAINST THEPOS ITIVE FIGURE OF RS. 29,61,709/- DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 64.44,560/- HAS THEREFORE BEEN GREATLY REDUCED TO A LOSS OF RS. 1,83,62,408/- IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE AO HAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES, IN THE I NCOME COMPUTATION OF THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME (OR IGINAL V/S. REVISED), UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. IT IS SEEN TH AT, THESE VARIATIONS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY PERTAINING TO THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B, WHICH SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN T HE NORMAL COURSE, IF THE REVISION WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLAIM U/S. 10B. THESE DEVIATIONS HAVE RATHER EXTEND ED TO NUMEROUS HEADS OF COMPUTATION U/S. 43B; 40(A)(IA), 36(1)(V), ETC. THESE DIFFERENCES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQ UATELY ADDRESSED / EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, EITHER BEFOR E THE AO OR DURING THE CURRENT APPEAL-PROCEEDINGS. THE ACCEP TANCE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THE REFORE BECOMES PRIMA-FACIE QUESTIONABLE. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT (EXTRACTED AT PARA 5.3 ABOVE) HAS OBJECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSEE'S REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME AND BELATED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED IN THIS REGARD, HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY TANGIBLE OR SPECIFIC REBU TTAL, TO THE SAID REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT , HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE IN-ORDINATE DELAY BETWEEN THE ORIGI NAL RETURN OF INCOME AND REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN TE RMS OF THE STIPULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECTION 139(1) R. W.S. 139(5). THE AO HAS ALSO STATED THAT, IT WAS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER THE STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT (F OR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B) IN FORM 56G WAS PROVIDED AND FILED IN REQUISITE TIME, ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT RETURN O F INCOME. THE STARK DIFFERENCES IN VARIOUS ACCOUNT-HEADS BETW EEN THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED RETURNS HAVE ALSO BEEN CITED I N THE REMAND REPORT, THEREBY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IN BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION AND FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, AND ESPECIALLY I N ABSENCE OF VALID EVIDENTIARY JUSTIFICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE BELATED- CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B , IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I NTHIS REGARD ARE THEREFORE DISALLOWED. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THIS PARA OF THE ORDER OF CI T (A), WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS FACTUAL ASPECT THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 8 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME U/S. 139(1) AND THE REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIB ED U/S. 139(5) OF IT ACT. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE SUB SECTION (5) O F SECTION 139 WHICH IS RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 139 (5) IF ANY PERSON, HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN U NDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (4), DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR A NY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIM E BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 6. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 139, IF ANY PERSON, HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SEC TION (4), DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FUR NISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASS ESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2010 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE F ILED REVISED RETURN UP TO 31.03.2011. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.03.2011 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS A VALID RETURN FILED U/S. 139(5) OF IT ACT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBE D U/S 139 (1). ONCE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE SAME CA NNOT BE IGNORED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE AO AND CIT(A). IN THIS REGAR D, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'B LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANGALORE CHE MICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. AS REPORTED IN [1991] 59 TAXMAN 508 (KAR) WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE A VALID REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED BY A SSESSEE, IT COMPLETELY EFFACES AND OBLITERATES ORIGINAL RETURN AND, THEREF ORE, IT IS ONLY REVISED RETURN THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE O F MAKING ASSESSMENT. PARA NO. 8 OF THIS JUDGEMENT IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW. 8. REGARDING QUESTION NO. 1, MUCH DISCUSSION IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE ONCE THE ORIGINAL RETURN IS WITHDRAWN OR IS SUBSTITUTED BY FILING A VALID REVISED RETURN, THE NATURAL CONSEQUE NCES IS THAT THE EARLIER RETURN WOULD BE EFFACED OR OBLITERATED FOR ALL PURPOSES UNDER THE ACT. THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, TH EREFORE, NECESSARILY WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 8 SIMILARLY, THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION WILL B E IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE COMPUTED AFTER CONSIDERING THE REVISED RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.03.2011. IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DIFF ERENCES IN VARIOUS FIGURES AS NOTED BY THE AO ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, EXPLANATIONS CAN BE ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY ABOUT THESE DIFFERENCES, THEN NECESS ARY DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS AS PER LAW CAN BE MADE. BU T FOR THESE DIFFERENCES, REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE IGNORED ONCE THE SAME IS V ALIDLY FILED. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AND IF REQUIRED, HE MAY OBTAIN REMAND REPO RT FROM AO IN THIS REGARD AND DECIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LA W IN RESPECT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S. 10B AND IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DIFFERENCES IN FIGURES OF PROFIT AND EXPENS ES AS NOTED BY THE AO ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED F OR IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODI A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH JANUARY, 2019. /MS/ ITA NO. 2738/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 8 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.