My client's return has been picked up for scrutiny and he now wants to put things right by filing an updated return. Can he still do it?
No. The Telangana High Court held that clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) means what it says: no updated return may be furnished for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year in the assessee's case. The petitioner's case had been selected for scrutiny under CASS by a notice under s.143(2), so the Assessing Officer was right to reject his request to file an updated return, and the writ petition against the assessment order was dismissed with liberty to pursue the appeal.
Decided by the High Court (Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice and G.M. Mohiuddin J) on 2026-01-05, reported as Writ Petition No. 40361 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad); assessment year 2024-25. It bears on section 139(8A), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 144B, section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters.
This is the decision that fixes the deadline in practice. The window under s.139(8A) is now forty-eight months from the end of the relevant assessment year — the Court records that the Finance Act 2025 substituted 'forty-eight' for 'twenty-four' with effect from 1 April 2025 — and that length lulls people into thinking there is time. There is not: the window closes the moment a proceeding starts, and the Court held that the petitioner's failure to file before the s.143(2) notice was fatal, adding that he 'had not ventured to file the updated return before issuance of notice under Section 143(2)'. For a client with undisclosed virtual digital asset income, which is now the commonest use of the updated return, the sequence is everything — a disclosure made before any notice is available and cheap by comparison; the same disclosure attempted after a notice is not available at all. Note the second holding, which will be relied on by the department: the Board's Press Release of 23 December 2025 under the NUDGE campaign, inviting identified taxpayers to review and revise their returns, was held to apply only to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26, and the petitioner, not being an identified taxpayer and having a pending scrutiny, could not use it. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the disallowances and expressly left the appeal open, so the decision is about the gateway and not about the assessment.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner, a salaried employee, was assessed for AY 2024-25. His case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection system by a notice under s.143(2), on account of large deductions claimed under s.80G in the old tax regime. In response to a notice under s.142(1) dated 13 August 2025 he asked to be allowed to file an updated return under s.139(8A). That request was rejected and the Assessing Officer proceeded to assess under s.143(3) read with s.144B by order dated 22 December 2025, disallowing an exemption of Rs 4,01,869 claimed under s.10 and deductions of Rs 10,25,000 (Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C, Rs 50,000 under s.80CCD(1B), Rs 75,000 under s.80D, Rs 1,00,000 under s.80DDB and Rs 6,50,000 under s.80G) for want of documentary evidence, and initiating penalty under s.270A(9)(a) for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. The petitioner challenged the assessment order by writ, relying also on a Press Release of the Department of Revenue, CBDT, dated 23 December 2025, by which identified taxpayers were told through SMS and e-mail to review their returns and revise them by 31 December 2025, and arguing that the forty-eight month window under s.139(8A) had not expired for AY 2024-25. The Revenue relied on clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) and said the Press Release was confined to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) bars an updated return for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year, and it applied squarely because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not filed an updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the assessment proceedings, so the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the request and rightly proceeded to assess on merits (paras 9 and 10). The Press Release of 23 December 2025 applies to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26 and did not assist the petitioner, who was not an identified taxpayer under the NUDGE campaign (para 10). The remedy of appeal remains open and all grounds of law and fact may be taken before the appellate authority (para 10).
The Court set out s.139(8A) with its three provisos, recording that the twenty-four month period had been substituted by forty-eight months by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025 (para 8). It then read clause (b) of the third proviso as indicating that no updated return shall be furnished where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for the relevant assessment year in the assessee's case, and held that this squarely applied because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not ventured to file the updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the s.143(3) read with s.144B proceedings (para 9). On the Press Release, the Court read it as applicable to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26, noting that para 4 of the release recited that for AYs 2021-22 to 2024-25 identified taxpayers had updated their returns and paid more than Rs 2,500 crores of taxes, and held the petitioner was not an identified taxpayer approached under the NUDGE campaign; in any event the pendency of the scrutiny assessment barred him under clause (b) of the third proviso (para 10). Finding no error in the refusal, the Court declined to interfere and left the petitioner to his appeal (paras 10 to 12).
A bare reading of clause (b) of the third proviso to sub-section (8A) of Section 139 of the Act indicates that no updated return shall be furnished by any person for the relevant assessment year where any proceeding for assessment or reassessment or recomputation or revision of income under the Act is pending or has been completed for the relevant assessment year in his case.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Telangana High Court held that clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) means what it says: no updated return may be furnished for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year in the assessee's case. The petitioner's case had been selected for scrutiny under CASS by a notice under s.143(2), so the Assessing Officer was right to reject his request to file an updated return, and the writ petition against the assessment order was dismissed with liberty to pursue the appeal. This was decided by the High Court (Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice and G.M. Mohiuddin J) and bears on section 139(8A), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 144B, section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 40361 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad); assessment year 2024-25. This is the decision that fixes the deadline in practice. The window under s.139(8A) is now forty-eight months from the end of the relevant assessment year — the Court records that the Finance Act 2025 substituted 'forty-eight' for 'twenty-four' with effect from 1 April 2025 — and that length lulls people into thinking there is time. There is not: the window closes the moment a proceeding starts, and the Court held that the petitioner's failure to file before the s.143(2) notice was fatal, adding that he 'had not ventured to file the updated return before issuance of notice under Section 143(2)'. For a client with undisclosed virtual digital asset income, which is now the commonest use of the updated return, the sequence is everything — a disclosure made before any notice is available and cheap by comparison; the same disclosure attempted after a notice is not available at all. Note the second holding, which will be relied on by the department: the Board's Press Release of 23 December 2025 under the NUDGE campaign, inviting identified taxpayers to review and revise their returns, was held to apply only to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26, and the petitioner, not being an identified taxpayer and having a pending scrutiny, could not use it. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the disallowances and expressly left the appeal open, so the decision is about the gateway and not about the assessment. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the updated return BEFORE anything else happens; once a notice under s.143(2), s.148 or a revision proceeding is on foot the third proviso clause (b) shuts the door for that year.
The petitioner, a salaried employee, was assessed for AY 2024-25. His case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection system by a notice under s.143(2), on account of large deductions claimed under s.80G in the old tax regime. In response to a notice under s.142(1) dated 13 August 2025 he asked to be allowed to file an updated return under s.139(8A). That request was rejected and the Assessing Officer proceeded to assess under s.143(3) read with s.144B by order dated 22 December 2025, disallowing an exemption of Rs 4,01,869 claimed under s.10 and deductions of Rs 10,25,000 (Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C, Rs 50,000 under s.80CCD(1B), Rs 75,000 under s.80D, Rs 1,00,000 under s.80DDB and Rs 6,50,000 under s.80G) for want of documentary evidence, and initiating penalty under s.270A(9)(a) for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. The petitioner challenged the assessment order by writ, relying also on a Press Release of the Department of Revenue, CBDT, dated 23 December 2025, by which identified taxpayers were told through SMS and e-mail to review their returns and revise them by 31 December 2025, and arguing that the forty-eight month window under s.139(8A) had not expired for AY 2024-25. The Revenue relied on clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) and said the Press Release was confined to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26. The matter was decided on 2026-01-05 by the High Court (Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice and G.M. Mohiuddin J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) bars an updated return for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year, and it applied squarely because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not filed an updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the assessment proceedings, so the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the request and rightly proceeded to assess on merits (paras 9 and 10). The Press Release of 23 December 2025 applies to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26 and did not assist the petitioner, who was not an identified taxpayer under the NUDGE campaign (para 10). The remedy of appeal remains open and all grounds of law and fact may be taken before the appellate authority (para 10).
The Court set out s.139(8A) with its three provisos, recording that the twenty-four month period had been substituted by forty-eight months by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025 (para 8). It then read clause (b) of the third proviso as indicating that no updated return shall be furnished where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for the relevant assessment year in the assessee's case, and held that this squarely applied because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not ventured to file the updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the s.143(3) read with s.144B proceedings (para 9). On the Press Release, the Court read it as applicable to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26, noting that para 4 of the release recited that for AYs 2021-22 to 2024-25 identified taxpayers had updated their returns and paid more than Rs 2,500 crores of taxes, and held the petitioner was not an identified taxpayer approached under the NUDGE campaign; in any event the pendency of the scrutiny assessment barred him under clause (b) of the third proviso (para 10). Finding no error in the refusal, the Court declined to interfere and left the petitioner to his appeal (paras 10 to 12). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "A bare reading of clause (b) of the third proviso to sub-section (8A) of Section 139 of the Act indicates that no updated return shall be furnished by any person for the relevant assessment year where any proceeding for assessment or reassessment or recomputation or revision of income under the Act is pending or has been completed for the relevant assessment year in his case."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-01-05 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 40361 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad); assessment year 2024-25. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 139(8A), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 144B, section 270A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) bars an updated return for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year, and it applied squarely because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not filed an updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the assessment proceedings, so the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the request and rightly proceeded to assess on merits (paras 9 and 10). The Press Release of 23 December 2025 applies to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26 and did not assist the petitioner, who was not an identified taxpayer under the NUDGE campaign (para 10). The remedy of appeal remains open and all grounds of law and fact may be taken before the appellate authority (para 10). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Appeals matters, on section 139(8A), section 143(2), section 143(3), section 144B, section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Aparesh Kumar Singh, Chief Justice and G.M. Mohiuddin J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Read clause (b) as covering completed proceedings too, not just pending ones — a year already assessed is equally barred. Do not treat the forty-eight month window as time in hand; it is an outer limit, and the operative constraint is the absence of any proceeding. Where a client has undisclosed VDA income across several years, sequence the disclosures and file for every year at once rather than year by year, because a notice for one year does not bar the others but delay may. Do not rely on a CBDT press release or campaign as a source of a right to file — this Court held that the NUDGE press release of 23 December 2025 was confined to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26. If the request to file an updated return is refused mid-assessment, take the substantive grounds in appeal against the assessment order rather than by writ; that is the course the Court left open.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No contrary High Court decision has been found, and no decision citing this judgment has been found either. A search for decisions on the third proviso to s.139(8A) returns only this judgment and its companion, Mohammed Abdul Malik v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, decided by the same Telangana Bench on the same day, 5 January 2026, in identical terms; everything else returned is Tribunal material or statutory text. So a status of 'high courts differ' would be wrong: no other High Court has been found taking a different view of clause (b) of the third proviso, under which no updated return may be furnished for an assessment year in which any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed in the assessee's case. No appeal against the judgment has been traced. Two qualifications. The judgment is recent, so the absence of later treatment reflects its age rather than settled acceptance, and a single Bench of one High Court on a provision of this reach will attract argument elsewhere; in particular, whether a proceeding that is 'pending' for this purpose includes one that has been initiated but not yet notified to the assessee was not in issue here, the petitioner having received the s.143(2) notice. And the judgment construes the sub-section as the Court reproduced it, which is the first three provisos only. The fourth and fifth provisos, inserted by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025, put a separate bar on an updated return where a show-cause notice under s.148A has been issued after thirty-six months, with a carve-out where an order under s.148A(3) holds it not a fit case. Anyone advising on whether the forty-eight month window is still open must read all five provisos for the year in hand. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment's numbering opens with an unnumbered paragraph recording the appearances and then proceeds from '2.', so there is no paragraph 1; a citation to paragraph 1 of this judgment is wrong. The judgment reproduces s.139(8A) with its first, second and third provisos in full at paragraph 8 and expressly records that 'The expression "twenty-four" of the unamended Section 139(8A) of the Act has been substituted by "forty-eight" by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 01.04.2025'. That reproduction is the source used for the statutory text in the companion statutory entry. THE REPRODUCTION IS NOT COMPLETE, and this is the point that matters most about the judgment. The Court sets out only 'the first, second and third provisos which are material for consideration in the facts of the case'. Section 139(8A) as it now stands carries five provisos, the fourth and fifth having been inserted by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025. The fourth bars an updated return where a show-cause notice under s.148A has been issued after thirty-six months from the end of the relevant assessment year; the fifth lifts that bar where an order under s.148A(3) holds that it is not a fit case for a notice under s.148. This judgment must therefore NOT be used as a complete statement of s.139(8A), and a practitioner advising on whether the window is open has to read the section itself. Three smaller points. The Revenue's argument is recorded as referring to 'sub-clause (b) of third proviso' while the Court's own reasoning refers to 'clause (b) of the third proviso'; the provision is the same and nothing turns on the difference. The Press Release of the Department of Revenue dated 23 December 2025, relied on by both sides and central to the second holding, is described in the judgment but not reproduced in it, and it has not been examined for this entry, so what it says is recorded only as the Court describes it. And a companion writ petition, Mohammed Abdul Malik v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, appears to have been decided by the same Bench on the same day; it has not been examined here and whether it is identical in terms is not known. Finally, note the limit of the decision: the Court decided nothing on the merits of the disallowances and expressly left the appeal open, so the judgment is about the gateway and not about the assessment. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) bars an updated return for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year, and it applied squarely because the assessment proceeding was pending; the petitioner had not filed an updated return before the notice under s.143(2) or the assessment proceedings, so the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the request and rightly proceeded to assess on merits (paras 9 and 10). The Press Release of 23 December 2025 applies to identified taxpayers for AY 2025-26 and did not assist the petitioner, who was not an identified taxpayer under the NUDGE campaign (para 10). The remedy of appeal remains open and all grounds of law and fact may be taken before the appellate authority (para 10).
TaxSphere, “Mohammed Kaleem Ullah v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mohammed-kaleem-ullah-v-pccit-updated-return-third-proviso-bar/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I filed my returns late but only after a notice, and I paid the penalty for the delay. Does the proviso to s.276CC save me, and can I get the prosecution quashed by explaining the delay?
A compliance campaign message arrived and nothing was done about it. What does the department do next, and does an updated return filed late in the day count for anything?
My client never declared his crypto gains. Can he still put them right by an updated return, how long has he got, and what will it cost him?
You asked for time to reply to the draft order and were refused. Is the final order safe?
