IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Yellapragada Srinivasa Sankara Narayana, Vs. ACIT, 666, 2^nd Phase, 7^th Block, BSK 3^rd Stage, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 085. Circle – 1(2), PAN : ACCPN 8746 L Bangalore.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Prathik P,Advocate Revenue by : Shri.Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.

Date of hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the CIT(A)

vide DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070485048(1) dated 20.11.2024, challenging the Order of CIT(A) that the CIT(A) has not accepted second revised return filed by the assessee within the due date for filing revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that original return was filed on 30.08.2021 declaring income of Rs.2,19,04,730/- and paid self assessment tax of Rs.37,11,569/-. On 01.10.2021 assessee filed return of income under section 139(5) of the Act declaring income of Rs.2,18,34,470/- claiming refund of Rs.9,210/-. On 02.11.2021, the CPC processed return filed under section 139(1) of the Act and raised a demand of Rs.1,430/-. On 23.02.2022 assessee filed second revised return declaring the taxable income of Rs.45,77,640/- and claiming a refund of Rs.28,45,310/-. Assessee filed return due to significant errors in capital gains computation by ICICI bank PMS on sale of Infosys Ltd., shares (i) omission to apply, grant provision of this by adopting FMV Rs.1,167/- share as on 31.01.2018 for Rs.86,700/- shares held (ii) incorrect cost as Nil (iii) non-compliance with FIFO method mandated under section 45(2a) of the Act. These errors led to incorrect capital gain in earlier return. On 23.03.2022 CPC processed the second revised return filed by the assessee and determined refund of Rs.28,45,310/- plus applicable interest under section. On 20.04.2022 CPC processed the first revised return filed on 01.10.2021 resulting in higher income and consequently demand was also raised. Further, on 11.05.2022 assessee filed online application under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the intimation generated on 20.04.2022 and requested that the second revised return has been processed on 23.02.2022 generating refund. On 17.05.2022, the CPC rejected application under section 154 of the Act. Against the Order of rejection under section 154 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that due date for filing revised return was 31.12.2021 and the assessee filed second revised return on 23.02.2022 is barred by limitation and rejected appeal of the assessee.

3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the learned CIT(A) is completely wrong. As per the circular No.17/2021 dated 09.09.2021 F.No.225/49/2021/ITA-II issued by the CBDT Sl.No.6 the due date for furnishing of belated / revised return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 which was 31.12.2021 was extended upto 31.03.2022. Therefore the assessee has rightly revised the return within the due date specified under section 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, finding of the learned CIT(A) is wrong. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment in the case of Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., Vs. JCIT and Another Order dated 21.12.2004.

4. On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities

5. Considering the submissions of the assessee and facts available on records and Order of authorities below, we noted that the assessee revised his return of income second time within due date as specified in the Circular cited above in para No.6. Due date had been extended upto 31.03.2022. In view of this assessee revised the return secon