Section 139(5)

Section 139(5) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 139(5), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• PCIT v Wipro Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
  Yes. Both limbs — furnishing the declaration, and doing so before the due date for the original return — are mandatory, not directory. A claim made only in a belated revised return does not qualify.
• Dalmia Power Ltd v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our amalgamation was sanctioned long after the deadline for a revised return. Must the department accept revised returns filed to give effect to the scheme?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held that the department must receive the revised returns for assessment year 2016-17 and complete the assessment taking the sanctioned schemes into account. Section 139(5) did not apply, because the returns were not revised on account of an omission or wrong statement but because of the time taken to obtain the NCLT's sanction, and it was an impossibility to file them by the due date. Section 119(2)(b) and the Board's circular on condonation do not apply where the assessee has restructured with the prior approval of the NCLT and the department raised no objection. Section 170(1) required the successor to be assessed accordingly.
• Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  You want to make a claim you missed, but the time to revise the return has gone. Can you just write to the officer?
  Not to the Assessing Officer — a claim before him needs a revised return. But the Court expressly said this does not touch the Tribunal's power under s.254, so the appellate route stays open.
• K2 Family Private Trust v DCIT — the return utility cannot block the set-off order the assessee is entitled to claim High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The e-filing utility forces my client's STT-paid short-term loss against STT-paid gains first and will not let him claim the sequence he wants. Is his only option to file the return the utility's way and argue later?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the procedure of filing a return cannot bar an assessee from making a claim under the Act which he feels he is entitled to, and directed the CBDT to modify the utility so that the petitioner could set off the STT-paid short-term capital loss against the non-STT short-term capital gains first, failing which the Assessing Officer was to accept a revised return for AY 2025-26 in paper mode.
• Bahar Infocons P Ltd v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I over-reported income by mistake and the time to file a revised return has gone. Can it be fixed?
  The Commissioner cannot reject a revision application under s.264 solely because a revised return was not filed within the s.139(5) time. The power exists to relieve against over-assessment and reaches a mistake the assessee detects after the assessment is complete. Here provisions for bonus written back had been taxed twice across assessment years 2019-20 to 2021-22, and the revision applications were sent back to the Principal Commissioner to decide the adjustment on merits - the Court did not itself order relief.
• Kunal Structure (India) Pvt Ltd v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My return was defective and I cured the defect ten months later. Does the s.143(2) clock run from the original filing or from the day I removed the defect?
  From the original filing. Where the defect is removed within the time the Assessing Officer allowed, the return relates back to the date on which it was originally furnished, and the six-month limitation for a s.143(2) notice is counted from the end of the financial year in which that original return was filed. On the facts the scrutiny notice was issued nearly a year after that period had run out and was held barred. The Revenue's special leave petition was dismissed.
• R. Banumathy v Commissioner of Income Tax-I High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My client missed the s.10(10C) exemption in the original return, filed a revised return that the officer lodged as invalid, and the Commissioner rejected the s.264 revision. Is there anything left?
  Yes. The Madras High Court set aside the s.264 order and directed refund of the excess tax, holding that the exemption under s.10(10C) up to five lakh rupees was available to the employee of a bank under an early retirement option scheme and that Rule 2BA cannot cut down the section. It added that where an assessee pays excess tax it is the Department's bounden duty to tell him of the reliefs he is entitled to and to refund the excess.
• CIT v Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Is the list of defects in the Explanation to s.139(9) a closed list, so that the officer cannot call anything else a defect?
  No. The Calcutta High Court held that the defects specified in s.139(9) are illustrative and not exhaustive. The corollary is the one that helps the taxpayer: because the provision is a curative one, an omission such as the audit report of a trust not being filed with the return can be made good during the assessment proceedings, and the officer cannot then ignore the report or the return.
• Avendus Enhanced Return Fund v ACIT — a Category III AIF is assessed in its own name, and a s.14A disallowance the fund overstated in its own return goes back to the Assessing Officer for verification ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client is a Category III Alternative Investment Fund. It filed its own return, overstated a section 14A disallowance by more than a crore, and the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) both refused to correct it, citing Goetze. Is a revised computation before the Assessing Officer really worthless?
  No. The Mumbai Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, holding that Goetze (India) is confined to the powers of the Assessing Officer while the Bombay High Court in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders has held that the appellate authorities are competent to entertain a legitimate claim even if it was not made through a revised return. It did not decide the merits: because the nature and quantum of the exempt income, the applicability of section 115BBDA and the consequential section 14A disallowance all required verification from the assessment records, the matter went back with all contentions open. Note what the case also shows on the facts — a Category III AIF is assessed in its own name, on its own income, under the ordinary provisions; the section 115UB pass-through has nothing to do with it.
• Manmohan Singh v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it?
  On this order, yes, for a salaried assessee with no business or professional income. The Tribunal held that a revised return filed in time under s.139(5) supersedes the original, that the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricting the number of times the option may be exercised does not apply where there is no business or professional income, and that the filing of Form 10-IEA is procedural — the delay in filing it was condoned and the fact of filing it satisfied the requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the revised return under the old regime with the exemptions and deductions claimed.
• Ajay Kumar Patel v Addl. CIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The s.10 notice does not say which year it relates to, and my foreign account was inherited and already put in a revised return. Can the assessment stand?
  No, on both counts. A notice under s.10(1) that omits the relevant financial year, coupled with delay in initiating the proceedings, goes to the root of jurisdiction, and s.81 of the Black Money Act, being in pari materia with s.292B of the Income-tax Act, protects only clerical or technical mistakes and not jurisdictional infirmities. Separately, an inherited foreign deposit whose source is explained and which was disclosed in revised returns and by a letter to the jurisdictional officer before the s.10(1) notice is not an undisclosed asset within s.2(11), and historic interest of earlier years cannot be charged under the Black Money Act at all.
• Kae Capital Fund v ITO — the live question whether a SEBI 1996-Regulations venture capital fund is an "investment fund" under s.115UB, and why the Tribunal never reached it ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow my fund's section 10(23FB) exemption only if it proves it is not an investment fund under Explanation 1 to section 115UB, without ever hearing us. Has anyone decided whether a SEBI venture capital fund registered under the 1996 Regulations is inside section 115UB?
  Not in this order, and that is the point to take from it. The Mumbai Tribunal set the Commissioner (Appeals)' order aside and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication because a request for a personal hearing through video conferencing had been made and not granted, which clause 12 of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 does not permit — the Commissioner (Appeals) "shall allow such request". Having remitted on that ground the Tribunal expressly held that the assessee's other grievances did not call for adjudication at that stage. So the substantive question — whether a fund holding a certificate under the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 that has not migrated to the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 is an "investment fund" within clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 115UB, and so loses section 10(23FB) by the proviso inserted with effect from 1 April 2016 — remains undecided.
• ACIT v Lahari Holiday Homes (P) Ltd — the s.115BAA option can be exercised in a revised return, and the MAT credit then goes ITATHelps taxpayer
  We filed the original return under MAT claiming MAT credit, then filed a revised return within the due date opting for s.115BAA. The Assessing Officer says that is a prohibited withdrawal of the option. Is it, and what happens to the MAT credit and our brought-forward losses?
  It is not a withdrawal. A revised return under s.139(5) substitutes the original return and assumes the character of a return under s.139(1), so an option exercised for the first time in a revised return filed within the due date is a valid first exercise — there was no earlier exercise capable of being withdrawn. But once the concessional regime is allowed, no MAT credit can be claimed for that year; and s.115BAA(2) bars set-off only of losses attributable to the deductions it specifies, not of ordinary brought-forward business and capital losses.
• Shankar Lal Ludhani v DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I left the surrendered cash out of my original return and brought it in only by a revised return under s.139(5). Does the proviso to s.271AAC(1) still protect me?
  On this decision, yes. The Jaipur Bench held that once a revised return is filed the original stands withdrawn and is substituted by the revised return, so where the revised return has been accepted as a return under s.139 the proviso to s.271AAC(1) is answered and the penalty cannot stand.
• Timothy John Brinkman v DDIT (Inv.) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I am a foreign national who became resident in India and missed Schedule FA in my first return, but I put it right in a revised return. Is the Rs 10 lakh penalty still due?
  Not on these facts. The Mumbai Bench deleted a penalty under s.43 where a British citizen, resident in India for a fixed five-year assignment, omitted his United Kingdom assets from Schedule FA in the original return and disclosed them in a revised return filed within the time allowed by s.139(5). The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not established that he had ever been an Indian citizen or that the foreign investments came out of undisclosed Indian income, and that the Act is aimed at undisclosed foreign income and assets, not at a bona fide omission.
• ITD Cementation India Ltd v DCIT — an omitted Ind-AS reduction from book profit can still be claimed before the appellate authority ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  We forgot to claim the one-fifth transition amount and the s.115JB(2A)(b) other-comprehensive-income reduction in the return. We raised it by letter during the assessment. The CIT(A) has thrown it out because no revised return was filed. Is that the end of it?
  No. The bar on entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return operates against the Assessing Officer, not against an appellate authority. Where the material was before the CIT(A) he should have examined it and granted the reduction from book profit if it was allowable, and the Tribunal restored the two Ind-AS claims to the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered on the revised Form 29B.
• Prashant Vijay Kale v CPC, Bengaluru ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed my return on time and then revised it. CPC has ignored the original, treated the revised return as my first return, and charged s.234F fee and s.234A interest. Can that be undone?
  Yes. The Mumbai Bench found that the original return had been filed within the s.139(1) due date and that CPC and the CIT(A) had simply ignored it, and deleted both the Rs 5,000 fee under s.234F and the interest under s.234A charged on the footing that the revised return's date was the date of filing. Revising a return does not make a timely return late.
• Niranjan Lal Gupta v ITO ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Neither your original nor your revised return carried the self-assessment tax. The officer ignored that and assessed you on the original return. Is the assessment good?
  No. The Tribunal held that both returns were defective under s.139(9) because the self-assessment tax had not been paid, that the Assessing Officer should have directed the assessee to rectify the defect and had issued no defect notice at all, and that the assessment could not simply be built on the original return. The entire assessment was set aside and the officer directed to pass a fresh order under s.144.
• ACIT v Monarch Innovative Technologies Pvt Ltd ITATHelps taxpayer
  I filed my return on time but only claimed the section 80-IC deduction in a revised return. Does section 80AC kill the claim, and can the officer reopen an assessment in which he already allowed it?
  No on both counts, on these facts. The Mumbai Tribunal held that section 80AC requires only that the return be furnished on or before the due date under section 139(1); it does not say the deduction must itself be claimed in that return, and words cannot be read into a taxing statute that the legislature has not used. A revised return under section 139(5) filed in time is an extension of the original return. The reopening was also bad: all the material, including the revised return, the revised tax audit report and Form 10CCB, was before the officer when he allowed the deduction after detailed discussion, so this was a change of opinion. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
• Statutory position — ss.41 and 43 of the Black Money Act and s.72(c): the penalty of three times the tax computed under s.10, the Rs 10 lakh penalty for not reporting a foreign asset in the return with its twenty lakh rupee proviso from 1 October 2024, and the deemed year of acquisition for an asset acquired before commencement CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client's Black Money assessment covers a foreign account opened in 2009 and not declared under the one-time compliance window. The department has charged tax and a penalty of three times the tax, and says the year is fixed by s.72(c). What do those provisions actually say?
  Section 41 provides that the Assessing Officer may direct that, in a case where tax has been computed under s.10 in respect of undisclosed foreign income and asset, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax if any payable by him, "a sum equal to three times the tax computed under that section". It is therefore a multiple of the tax computed under s.10, and it follows the s.10 computation — if the computation goes, the base of the penalty goes with it. Section 43 is a different and smaller penalty: where a resident other than not ordinarily resident within s.6(6) of the Income-tax Act has furnished a return under s.139(1), (4) or (5) of that Act and fails to furnish any information, or furnishes inaccurate particulars, in that return relating to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India held by him as beneficial owner or otherwise, or in respect of which he was a beneficiary, or relating to any income from a source located outside India, the Assessing Officer "may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of ten lakh rupees". Its proviso, as substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024, reads: "Provided that this section shall not apply in respect of an asset or assets (other than immovable property), where the aggregate value of such asset or assets does not exceed twenty lakh rupees." The footnote on the departmental page records that before that substitution the proviso excluded only "an asset, being one or more bank accounts having an aggregate balance which does not exceed a value equivalent to five hundred thousand rupees at any time during the previous year". Section 72(c), in the removal-of-doubts provision at the end of the declaration chapter, is the hinge of the retrospectivity argument and reads: "where any asset has been acquired or made prior to commencement of this Act, and no declaration in respect of such asset is made under this Chapter, such asset shall be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which a notice under section 10 is issued by the Assessing Officer and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly".
• Statutory position — s.3 of the Black Money Act: the charge at thirty per cent, the proviso to s.3(1) that fixes the year of charge for an undisclosed foreign asset, and what ss.4 and 5 bring in and refuse to take out CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The department has issued a Black Money Act notice for a foreign bank account opened in 2007. The Act only came into force in 2015. On what does the charge on that asset actually rest, and in which year is it charged?
  On s.3(1) and its proviso. The Act came into force on 1 July 2015 (s.1(3): "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2015"). Section 3(1) charges tax "on every assessee for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 ... in respect of his total undisclosed foreign income and asset of the previous year at the rate of thirty per cent of such undisclosed income and asset". The proviso to s.3(1) is the provision that matters for an old asset: "Provided that an undisclosed asset located outside India shall be charged to tax on its value in the previous year in which such asset comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer." So the year of charge for an asset is not the year of acquisition but the year of coming to notice, and s.3(2) defines the "value of an undisclosed asset" as its fair market value determined in the prescribed manner. Section 4(1) puts three things into the total: (a) undisclosed income from a source outside India, (b) income from a source outside India where a return was required under s.139 of the Income-tax Act and none was furnished in time, and (c) the value of an undisclosed asset located outside India. Section 4(2) keeps out of the total any variation made under ss.29 to 43C, ss.57 to 59 or s.92C of the Income-tax Act, and s.4(3) keeps what is charged here out of total income under that Act. Section 5(1)(i) forbids any deduction for expenditure or allowance and any set off of loss, "whether or not it is allowable in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act"; s.5(1)(ii) allows one reduction only — income already assessed or assessable under the Income-tax Act or under this Act is reduced from the value of the undisclosed asset if the assessee furnishes evidence to the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the asset was acquired from that income — and s.5(2) prorates that reduction for immovable property.
• CBDT Circular No. 10/2015 — APA rollback CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  I want the four rollback years with my APA. Can I pick only the years that help me, and what will knock rollback out before I start?
  You cannot pick and choose: the applicant has to either apply for all the four years or not apply at all, subject only to the transaction not existing in a year or the rollback conditions failing in a year. Rollback is not available for a year in which the return was filed under s.139(4), nor where the Tribunal has finally disposed of the appeal on the arm's length price of that transaction, and it can never reduce the total income or increase the loss declared in the return.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.