SAJ TestPlant Private Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 388/PUN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1503 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 139(5); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.388/PUN/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 SAJ Test Plant Private Limited 72/76, Mundhwa, Pune Cantonment, Pune – 411036 PAN : AABCS4227K Vs. DCIT, Circle 6, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 24-01-2020 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against not accepting the second revised return filed by the assessee and consequently disallowing deduction of Rs.2,91,062 claimed by the assessee. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer of dynamometers, test benches, control systems and Assessee by Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 26-08-2022 Date of pronouncement 29-08-2022 ITA No.388/PUN/2020 SAJ Test Plant Pvt. Ltd. 2 exhaust emission analyzers, which are used for testing automobiles. A return was filed declaring total income under normal provisions at Rs.2,71,94,190. The first revised return was filed on 12.03.2008 showing total income of Rs.2,66,60,760, in which commission payable of Rs.5,33,430 was deducted. Thereafter, the assessee filed a second revised return on 14.03.2009 claiming deduction of Rs.2,91,062 on account of booking of double sales in the current year. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the second revised return on the ground that the first revised return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on the same date, namely, 14.03.2009, on which the second revised return was filed. He, however, computed the total income under regular provisions by considering the income declared by the assessee in second revised return and thereafter, made disallowance of Rs.2,91,062 towards the deduction which was claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on the ground that the second revised return filed by the assessee was not valid. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.388/PUN/2020 SAJ Test Plant Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the dispute centres around the filing of the second revised return by the assessee on 14.03.2009. The AO did not accept the validity of second revised return only on the ground that the first revised return was processed on the same date and hence, the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act were not applicable. In this regard, it would be relevant to note the language of section 139(5) of the Act at the material time, which provides that: `If a return is furnished under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) and assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish 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 assessment, whichever is earlier.’ Admittedly the second revised return was filed on 14.03.2009, which is otherwise within period of one year from the end of relevant assessment year, namely, 2007- 08. The question is as to whether the second revised return was filed after the completion of assessment? In this case, the return filed by the assessee was subjected to section 143(1) proceedings and the case was taken up for scrutiny after processing the return ITA No.388/PUN/2020 SAJ Test Plant Pvt. Ltd. 4 u/s 143(1) on 14.03.2009. Obviously, when the assessee furnished the second revised return, the first revised return was only processed and intimation was sent to the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act, which cannot be construed as an assessment so as to debar the assessee from filing the second revised return on the ground that the assessment was already completed. The Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Tata Metaliks Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 368 ITR 643 (Cal) considered an identical fact situation in which the AO refused to accept the revised return only on the ground that the first return was already accepted u/s 143(1) and hence, the assessee was prohibited from filing any revised return. Repelling the contention of the Revenue, the Hon‟ble High Court upheld the view point of the assessee by holding that the processing of return u/s 143(1) could not be described as making of assessment. Though this judgment has been rendered for assessment year 1999-2000, however, the language of section 143(1) of the Act for the said assessment year is identical to the language of section 143(1) for the year under consideration, namely, 2007-08. Respectfully following the precedent, we overturn the impugned order on this ITA No.388/PUN/2020 SAJ Test Plant Pvt. Ltd. 5 issue and hold that the assessee validly filed the second revised return. 5. In the second revised return, the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs.2,91,062. The AO has not examined the deductibility or otherwise of this amount on merits and simply made disallowance on the ground that the second revised return was non est. As we have set aside the view of the authorities on the validity of second revised return, the deductibility of the expenditure needs to be examined by the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for examining the deductibility or otherwise of the amount, claimed by the assessee in second revised return on merits, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 29 th August, 2022 GCVSR ITA No.388/PUN/2020 SAJ Test Plant Pvt. Ltd. 6 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-4, Pune 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-3, Pune विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “B” / DR „B‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 26-08-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 29-08-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *