$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 132/2008 Reserved on: October 29, 2015 Date of decision: November 23, 2015 VINOD KUMAR KHATRI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani with Mr. B.K. Manjani, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT % 23.11.2015 S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by Assessee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is directed against impugned order dated 28th September 2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA Nos. 764 & 2795/Del/2004 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 1992-93. Background facts 2. brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are that search was conducted in premises of Assessee on 17 th February 1992. Thereafter, on 31st August 1992 Assessee for first time filed his ITA 132/2008 Page 1 of 19 original return of income for AY 1992-93 declaring total income of Rs. 22,400. said return was considered to be defective and incomplete. Since Assessee did not respond to intimation sent to him under Section 139 (9) of Act, this return was lodged. Subsequently, in response to notice issued under Section 142 (1) of Act, Assessee filed his return of income on 19th January 1993 declaring again total income of Rs. 22,400. This was accompanied by computation of taxable income and statement of affairs as on 31st March 1992 and income and expenditure account for year ended on 31st March 1992. 3. In assessment order dated 31st March 1994 Assessing Officer ( AO ) noted that in assessment proceedings, notices were issued on 18th November 1992 and 29th December 1992 to Assessee under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of Act. One Mr. Mahender Mahajan, Chartered Accountant (CA) appeared on behalf of Assessee and filed replies dated 21st January 1993 and 8th February 1993 respectively to aforementioned notices. Subsequently, notices were issued under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of Act along with questionnaire dated 29 th December 1993. However, no response was given by Assessee to said notices. 4. In response to another notice issued under Section 143 (2) of Act, one Mr. Inder Mohan Singh on behalf of Assessee attended assessment proceedings on 27th January 1994 before AO. final show- cause notice ( SCN ) dated 15th March 1994 was issued to Assessee by AO along with notices under Section 142 (1) of Act setting out proposals for AY 1992-93. In response to said final SCN, Mr. Inder Mohan Singh, authorized representative (AR) of Assessee, attended assessment proceedings on 22nd March 1994 and requested for short ITA 132/2008 Page 2 of 19 adjournment to enable Assessee to file revised return of income. 5. At this stage it requires to be noticed that in his statement of affairs filed along with his return of income on 19th January 1993, Assessee has shown opening capital of Rs. 60,500 and on liabilities side, sum of Rs. 12,91,42,945.72 was shown towards advances received from Russia for exports. On assets side, Assessee showed loans and advances in names of Dr. Gopal (Rs. 61,26,000), Mr. Deepak Jain (Rs. 30 lakhs), Mr. H.R. Shiv (Rs. 1.50 crores) and Mr. P.C. Sharma (Rs. 1 crore). He also showed cash with Income Tax Department (Rs. 8,94,10,873.72) and further cash with income tax department in account of Mr. P.C. Sharma (Rs. 55,74,912). 6. Mr. Inder Mohan Singh, AR who attended assessment proceedings on 22nd March 1994 requested for short adjournment to enable Assessee to file revised return of income in which he proposes to include surrendered amount of Rs. 13.31 cores. AO in assessment order noted that this request was accepted and case was adjourned to 24 th March 1994. Subsequent thereto, on 30th March 1994 just before deadline for finalisation of assessment, revised return was filed by Assessee. AO noted in assessment order that in order to be fair to Assessee who came forward with revised return before completion of assessment, this revised return is being considered while passing this order. assessment order 7. In assessment order, AO noted that from bank accounts of Assessee s two proprietary concerns, viz., M/s. Trinity International Corporation (TIC) and M/s. Daffodil International Corporation (DIC) in ITA 132/2008 Page 3 of 19 course of raid, amounts of Rs. 8,94,10,873.72 was seized. AO also set out origin of money into bank accounts. AO also noted that during course of search on 26th February 1992 Assessee admitted fact of money received in his bank accounts and further that money belonged to him and that it represented his unaccounted income. 8. assessment order then proceeded to set out Assessee s statement recorded on 26th February 1992, during course of search, as under: Regarding deposit of Rs. 12.914 crores Q.1: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri you are proprietor of M/s. Trinity International Corporation, having current account No. 9958 in Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Daryaganj, New Delhi. In account money worth Rs. 12.89 crores have been received out of which at present you have balance of Rs. 10,17,340. From statement of account it is understood that large sums of money have been withdrawn in cash as well as by transfer through DDs. In this respect statement of yours was recorded on 17th February 1992 what do have to say in respect of this money which has come to your bank account. Ans. As already stated in my statement under Section 131 of IT Act, 1961 dated 17th February 1992 I am not in knowledge about details of money received and purpose of various withdrawals. As I have already stated on 17th February 1992 I have acted on instructions of mainly Dr. Gopal, I cannot explain sources of these receipts/withdrawals from aforesaid current account No. 9958. Being proprietor of M/s. Trinity International Corporation, I offer this unexplained income for taxation under Section 134 (4) read with explanation 5 of Section 271 (1)(c) which has been duly explained and understood by me. I may be exempted therefore from penalty and prosecution proceedings. aforesaid amount may be treated as my unexplained ITA 132/2008 Page 4 of 19 income. I am voluntarily willing to pay taxes on aforesaid unexplained income of Rs. 12.89 crores. 9. AO noted that surrendered amount of Rs. 12.89 crores was corrected to Rs. 12.914 crores in subsequent statement recorded on 26th February 1992. assessment order also set out statement with regard to deposit of Rs. 40,00,500 in account of DIC by Assessee as under: Q. 1 Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri You are proprietor of M/s. Daffodil International Corporation having current account No. 10024 in Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj, New Delhi. In this account, amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs was deposited. In this respect statement of yours was recorded on 17th February 1992. What do you have to say in respect of this money which has come to your bank account? Ans.: As already stated in my statement on 17th February 1992 I am not in knowledge about details of sources of money received as aforesaid. I have already stated on 17 th February 1992 that I have acted on instructions of mainly Dr. Gopal. I cannot explain sources of receipts in current account No. 10024. Being proprietor of M/s. Daffodil International Corporation, I offer this unexplained income for taxation under Section 132 (4) read with explanation 5 of Section 271 (1) (c) which has been duly explained and understood by me. I may be exempted therefore from penalty and prosecution proceedings. aforesaid money may be treated as my unexplained income. I am voluntarily willing to pay taxes on aforesaid unexplained income of Rs. 40 lakhs. 10. AO noted that from statement of declaration recorded on 26 th and 27th February 1992 under Section 132 (4) of Act, Assessee had surrendered deposits in bank accounts totalling to Rs. 13.314 crores thereby claiming immunity from penalty and prosecution proceedings. By letter dated 27th February 1992 addressed to Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [ CIT, New Delhi ], Assessee requested that seized amount should be adjusted towards his existing liability on account of ITA 132/2008 Page 5 of 19 advance tax on amount declared by him under Section 132 (4) of Act. In said letter he had worked out his advance tax liabilities to extent of Rs. 7,45,43,028. He had also enclosed advance tax challan to said amount. Subsequently, during proceedings under Section 132 (5) of Act, Assessee retracted from his earlier admission of unaccounted income declared under Section 132 (4) made by him on 26 th and 27th February 1992. Assessee now claimed that said amount of Rs. 12.91 crores, which have been received from Russia through official banking channels represented 100 % advance money for supplying, by way of export, certain number of nickel and cadmium batteries to party in USSR for which TIC had entered into contract. AO further noted that Assessee could not substantiate above claim and had in fact surrendered said sum of Rs. 12.91 crores by filing revised return of income on 30th March 1994 declaring total income of Rs. 12,91,97,398. 11. As regards sum of Rs. 40 lakhs received into bank account of DIC by way of clearing on 23rd January 1992, Assessee claimed that this represented equal amount which was withdrawn in cash from bank account of TIC and was given as short-term advance to one Mr. Radha Krishnan of M/s. P.B.R. Engineering. Mr. Radha Krishnan had returned it to him on 23rd January 1992 by way of draft/pay order which was deposited by Assessee into account of DIC. However, Assessee was unable to produce any confirmation of these facts from Mr. Radha Krishnan. Consequently, AO added sum of Rs. 40 lakhs to Assessee s total income. However, AO observed that Assessee was at liberty to approach CIT if he could prove above facts within limitation period under Act. Since Assessee failed to include said sum in his revised return of income, AO noted that notice was being issued to Assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of Act. AO ITA 132/2008 Page 6 of 19 also noted that Assessee was unable to produce any confirmation regarding advance sum of Rs. 3,41,26,000. This was despite being asked to provide details by questionnaire dated 29th February 1992. Consequently, AO estimated reasonable rate of return of 12% on said advances which worked out to Rs. 40,95,120 which was, therefore, added to total income of Assessee. calculation of total income of Assessee was computed by AO and was rounded off to Rs. 13,73,70,620. Proceedings before CIT (A) 12. Initially appeal filed by Assessee against aforesaid order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] by order dated 27th July 1995 as being time-barred. However, ITAT by its order dated 2nd January 2002 passed in Assessee s appeal, ITA No. 5629/Del/1995 directed CIT (A) to condone delay and decide appeal on merits after allowing opportunity to Appellant. Thereafter, CIT (A) passed order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of additions made by AO. 13. Assessee also filed application before CIT (A) under Section 154 of Act seeking rectification of order dated 30 th January 2004. This was dismissed by CIT (A) on 19 th April 2004. Against both aforementioned orders, Assessee filed ITA Nos. 764 & 2795/Del/2004 before ITAT. Appeals before ITAT 14. ITAT first took up ITA No. 764/Del/2004 for consideration. Of five grounds urged in appeal, Assessee pressed only following two: ITA 132/2008 Page 7 of 19 3. CIT (A) has erred on facts as well as in law in holding amount of Rs. 2,91,42,945 as taxable only because Appellant had shown it in revised return under pressure of department. 5. CIT (A) has erred on facts as well as in law in holding amount of Rs. 40,00,000 received from Shri Radha Krishnan is as unexplained even though same was against money paid to him from withdrawals from bank even though there is no increase in funds of Appellant by this amount. 15. ITAT dismissed appeal after holding that revised return was filed voluntarily by Assessee on 30th March 1994 on basis of surrender of amount declared by him in statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of act during course of search. Assessee had been unable to explain source of this receipt and offered it as income in form of unexplained credit. declaration made by Assessee was voluntary and he also expressed his willingness to pay tax on said undisclosed income. Assessee was unable to substantiate that amount received from Russia was windfall without there being any source. ITAT also noted observations of CIT (A) that once assessment had been completed under Section 143 (3) of Act, Assessee could not be permitted to withdraw revised return. ITAT rejected plea of learned counsel for Assessee that revised return filed on 30th March 1994 by Assessee was under coercion. 16. ITAT negatived principal contention of Assessee that since original return was not filed within due date prescribed under Section 139 (1) of Act, Assessee could not have validly revised return under Section 139 (5) of Act. ITAT noted that original return was filed on 31st August 1992, i.e., within due date prescribed ITA 132/2008 Page 8 of 19 under Section 139 (1) of Act. return subsequently filed on 19th January 1993 was only to rectify defects pointed out by AO under Section 139 (9) of Act. After having rectified defects, return would relate back to date of original filing, i.e., 31 st August 1992. Therefore, Assessee was competent to file revised return under Section 139 (5) of Act and it could have been taken cognizance by AO. 17. ITAT also distinguished decision of Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 67 (SC). In said case, original return was not filed within time prescribed under Section 139 (1) of Act. time limit within which assessment had to be completed under Section 153 (1) (a) of Act was exceeded. However, in present case, assessment was completed on 31 st March 1994 within time limit prescribed under Section 153 (1) (a) of Act. Further, Assessee had admitted to deposits in bank accounts of his proprietory concerns. This circumstance corroborated finding of AO that deposits in bank account were unexplained and therefore, liable to tax. 18. As regards retraction by Assessee of statement made by him under Section 132 (4) of Act, ITAT observed that although statement was not available in records, its existence was never denied by Assessee in course of assessment proceedings. ITAT declined to accept contention of Assessee that no such statement under Section 132 (4) of Act was recorded. ITAT referred to Rule 10 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 ( ITAT Rules ) in terms of which affidavit had to be filed stating clearly and concisely about alleged fact which cannot be borne out by, or is contrary to, ITA 132/2008 Page 9 of 19 records. No such affidavit had been filed by Assessee. ITAT observed that onus is on person retracting to demonstrate that amount surrendered was not income rather than duty of AO to bring evidence for accepting admission made. ITAT noted that till today Assessee has never supplied any such goods nor refunded amount. This shows conduct of Assessee and also demonstrates that amount received was never for supply of goods under so called contract. These are merely eye wash. 19. Referring to sequence of events, ITAT noted that apart from fact that there was no material to substantiate Assessee s allegations that revised return was filed under coercion, such coercion could not have persisted after 22nd March 1994 since Assessee filed revised return as late as 30th March 1994. ITAT noted that till date, i.e., in proceedings before them, Assessee has not been able to file any evidence to suggest that amount deposited in bank account as explained and not unexplained deposit. Again in respect of addition of Rs.40 lakh, no material was produced before ITAT to suggest that amount withdrawn from bank account was given as short term advance to Mr. Radha Krishnan. There was no confirmation letter from side of Mr. Radha Krishnan who alleged to have repaid said sum. ITAT disposed of ITA No. 764/Del/2004 upholding order of AO and CIT (A). 20. As regards other appeal, ITA No. 2795/Del/2004, against order of CIT (A) declining to rectify order dated 30th January 2004, ITAT in its para 10 of said decision noted that learned counsel for Assessee did not press grounds set out in said appeal. ITAT accordingly dismissed ITA No. 2795/Del/2004 as having become ITA 132/2008 Page 10 of 19 infructuous. Proceedings before this Court 21. Initially this appeal was dismissed by Division Bench on 31 st August 2010 with liberty to Assessee to file writ petition challenging order of ITAT. This was because during pendency of said appeal, ITAT rejected application filed by Assessee under Section 254 (2) of Act seeking rectification of purported mistakes. That application had been dismissed on technical grounds. appeal filed against said order was dismissed with liberty to file writ petition. Learned counsel for Assessee informed Court that Assessee was proposing to file writ petition. By order dated 31st August 2010 Division Bench of this Court observed as under: Since entire case of Appellant, in this appeal, is also founded on purported mistakes committed by Tribunal, it would be outcome of proposed writ petition, which Assessee is contemplating to file, that will determine fate of aforesaid two additions made by AO and sustained by Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with liberty to Assessee to file writ petition challenging order of Tribunal. We make it clear that if that writ petition is allowed and based thereupon impugned order of Tribunal also needs revision, if would be open to Assessee to seek revival of this appeal. 22. Subsequently on 3rd September 2012 order was passed by Court noting that after dismissal of writ petition challenging order of ITAT, Assessee s fresh application under Section 254 (2) of Act was dismissed on technical grounds. said second rectification application was dismissed on 16th March 2012. Court noted that Assessee s appellate remedy under Section 260A of Act had not been ITA 132/2008 Page 11 of 19 exhausted. It accordingly directed that present appeal ITA No. 132 of 2008 be restored to file. 23. Consequent upon above order dated 3rd September 2012, present appeal was revived. On 28th January 2013, following questions were framed for consideration: 1. Whether return filed on 30th March 1994 is valid revised return? 2. If answer to question (1) above is in negative, whether surrender made in that return dated 30th March 1994 can be regarded as piece of evidence? 3. Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could have relied on purported statement made by Assessee under Section 132 (4) when Tribunal specifically noted that statement was not available on record? Assessee fails to prove coercion 24. Since one of issues concerns statement made by Assessee, which was not available in file, this Court by its order dated 9th September 2015 directed learned Senior standing counsel for Revenue to keep ready for perusal by Court all original records of assessment proceedings, proceedings before CIT (A) as well as ITAT. However, despite their best efforts, Revenue was unable to trace out record containing statement in original made by Assessee. Nevertheless, Court has proceeded to decide case on merits. reason for this is that at no stage of assessment proceedings, or even in memo of appeal filed before CIT (A), was it urged by Assessee that he had not made any statement of declaration under Section 132 (4) of Act in course of search. This was too crucial issue for Assessee to have omitted mentioning. As rightly ITA 132/2008 Page 12 of 19 pointed out by ITAT, if as is sought to be contended by Assessee, no statement was given by him in first place, then question of having to retract such statement would not arise. Assessee is, therefore, not consistent in his plea regarding statement made in first place and its retraction subsequently. In absence of any affidavit filed and at any point in time, in terms of Rule 10 of ITAT Rules, categorically stating that what has been set out in assessment order was not statement made by him, Assessee cannot be said to have discharged onus of showing that fact not borne by record was stated in order of AO or CIT (A). 25. There is no reason why AO should have compelled Assessee to file revised return. Such allegation ought not to be permitted to be casually made. Assessee who makes such allegation will have to take risk of stating it on affidavit at earliest point in time. If it is done belatedly at appellate stage, Assessee will have to satisfy appellate forum that there were good and genuine reasons that prevented Assessee from making such allegation earlier. rationale behind Rule 10 of ITAT Rules will have to be borne in mind. report will then have to be called for from concerned authority, in this instance AO, and thereafter decision taken on whether such plea can be accepted. In present case, Assessee has failed to discharge onus of showing even prima facie that he was compelled to make statement during search or to file revised return in assessment proceedings. record of assessment proceedings show that adjournments were granted as and when requested by Assessee. Apart from fact that he was represented in assessment proceedings by CA or AR, he also had sufficient time and opportunity to reflect on what had been stated by him during search proceedings. Court accordingly rejects plea ITA 132/2008 Page 13 of 19 that Assessee did not voluntarily make statement attributed to him in course of search or that he was coerced during assessment proceedings to file revised return. Neither original nor revised return was non-est 26. Court has examined Section 139 (1) (b), Section 139 (4) and Section 139 (5) of Act. As already noted return originally filed was found to be defective. notice was issued under Section 139 (9) of Act asking Assessee to rectify defects. Section 139 (9) itself states that if defects are not rectified within time allowed, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, return shall be treated as invalid return and provision of this Act shall apply as if Assessee had failed to furnish return. first proviso to Section 139 (9) of Act permits AO to condone delay where Assessee rectifies defect even after period stipulated thereunder or such further period allowed by AO as long as rectified return was filed before assessment was finalised. 27. It was urged by Mr. Manjani, learned counsel for Assessee that if revised rectified return was filed beyond time allowed by AO, it should be treated as non-est. He placed reliance on decisions in Suram Chand Rahlan vs. CIT (1997)226 ITR 927 (Del), Hind Samachar Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 330 ITR 266 (P&H), CIT v. Pawan Gupta (2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) and DIT v. Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial, Telecommunications (2010)323 ITR 249 (Del).In support of proposition that retracted statement of Assessee could not form basis of assessment, without any corroborative material, reliance was placed on decision in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). ITA 132/2008 Page 14 of 19 28. In present case, filing of return by Assessee on 19 th January 1993 was only by way of rectification of defects pointed out by AO in notice issued under Section 139 (9) of Act. This rectified return was related back to original date when return was filed on 31st August 1992. It cannot, therefore, be said that original return was itself non-est as contended by Assessee. Consequently, filing of revised return in terms of Section 139 (5) of Act by Assessee prior to completion of assessment on 31st March 1994 was within time prescribed. Notice had already been issued in course of assessment proceedings to Assessee under Section 143 (2) and Section 142 (1) of Act. Non-consideration of documents 29. Mr. Manjani contended that documents placed on record by Assessee before AO and CIT (A) included copies of contract and receipts which purportedly substantiated advance to Mr. Radha Krishnan of Rs. 40 lakhs. As regards receipt of advance from Russian party for export, he relied on certain copies of bank documents. However, as noted by ITAT these were only photocopies and not originals. 30. further aspect that requires to be noted is that even before CIT (A) Assessee did not urge that documents produced by him were not considered. perusal of order of CIT (A) dated 30th January 2004 reveals that initially appeal, filed on 13th October 1994 against assessment order dated 31st March 1994 contained following grounds: (1) Learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts as well as in law in making addition of Rs. 40 lacs as unexplained income in spite ITA 132/2008 Page 15 of 19 of fact that this amount is return of amount given earlier by Appellant. (2) Learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts as well as in law in estimating income from business at Rs. 1,00,000 against Rs. 22,400 declared by Assessee. (3) Learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts as well as in law in making addition of Rs. 40,95,120 as notional interest, which is neither permissible under Act nor has this income accrued or been received by Appellant. 31. On 7th December 1994 following additional grounds were raised: (1) That assessment order made is liable to be set aside for fresh assessment as no fresh notice were issued under Section 143 (2) After filing of revised return under Section 139 (5) which was duly accepted and acted upon by learned Deputy Commission Assessment which was filed on 30th March 1994 and assessment order was passed on 31st March 1994. (3) That no reasonable opportunity was given as assessment was completed in hurry on next date of filing revised return, particularly when after filing of revised return assessment was not getting barred on 31st March 1994 and could have been completed within one year thereof that is 31 st March 1995. (4) That amount of Rs. 12,91,42,946 was receipt which is claimed as non-taxable being advance which could not partake character of income and that there has been no evidence that same stands remitted to fall in net of taxable income. (5) Without prejudice it is submitted that amount received from Russia was windfall without there being any source and is casual receipt not liable to be taxed under Income Tax Act. 32. There was no occasion, therefore, for CIT (A) to consider plea that statement attributed to Assessee, as recorded by AO in ITA 132/2008 Page 16 of 19 assessment order, was not in fact made by Assessee or that documents tendered by Assessee were not considered by AO. On contrary, order of CIT (A) showed that in course of appellate proceeding, remand report was sought from AO on additional grounds urged by Assessee. remand report of AO has been set out in para 7.2 of CIT (A) order. AO has subsequently denied contention of Assessee that no reasonable opportunity was given to Assessee or that assessment was completed in hurry. Was notice under Section 143 (2) required? 33. Mr. Manjani urged that it was incumbent on AO to issue fresh notice under Section 143 (2) before finalising assessment made pursuant to revised return filed by Assessee and that failure to do so invalidated assessment made. 34. It has been pointed out by Mr. Shivpuri, learned counsel for Revenue, that there is division of opinion of High Courts on issue whether filing of revised return obliterates original return, or whether revised return only rectifies deficiency in original return, but did not obliterate it. Gauhati High Court in Sunanda Rak Deka v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT v. India s Hobby Centre (P) Ltd (1995) 78 Taxman 377 (Cal) have held that revised return substitutes original return. On other hand, decisions in Deepnarain Nagu & Co. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 37 (MP), CIT v. Girish Chandraharidas (1992) 196 ITR 833 (Ker) and Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited v. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 75 (Mad) emphasise that revised return can be filed only if omission or wrong statement in original return is discovered by Assessee. ITA 132/2008 Page 17 of 19 35. There is merit in contention that revised return should relate back to return originally filed, minus omissions and wrong statements. Even if revised return replaces original return, assessment proceedings leading up to revised return do not get obliterated. decisions in CIT v. Chitranjali (1986) 159 ITR 801 (Cal), F.C. Agarwal v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 408 (Gau.) and Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons v. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 591 (Mad) appear to support this proposition. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shivpuri, it could never have been intended by legislature that filing of revised would wipe out proceedings that have taken place till then. This would include documents gathered or filed, and statements made, during course of assessment proceedings and hearings conducted till then. filing of revised return was during continuation of assessment proceedings that began with filing of return. assessment proceedings continued till finalisation of assessment pursuant to filing of revised return. 36. Court is, therefore, inclined to accept plea that with number of hearings having taken place pursuant to filing of original return, as result of which Assessee volunteered to file revised return, and with revised return having been filed just before deadline for conclusion of assessment proceedings, there was no need for AO to issue another notice to Assessee under Section 143 (2) of Act prior to finalising assessment. assessment proceedings, for all practical purposes, stood concluded by time of filing of revised return. Conclusion 37. For above reasons, Court answers Question No. 1 in affirmative and holds that revised return filed on 31st March 1994 was ITA 132/2008 Page 18 of 19 valid return. In that view of matter, Question No. 2 does not arise. Question No. 3 it is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of Revenue and against Assessee. ITAT did not commit any error in relying on statement made by Assessee under Section 132 (4) of Act. 38. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but in circumstances, with no order as to costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. NOVEMBER 23, 2015 Rk ITA 132/2008 Page 19 of 19 Vinod Kumar Khatri v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax