RFM Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year: 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals Addl./JCIT (A)-6 Mumbai [in short, the “Addl./JCIT(A)”], Mumbai’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086277036(1), dated 20.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to admit the assessee’s appeal for its adjudication on merits for the precise reason that he ought to have filed for the necessary rectification before the Assessing Officer/CPC for redressal of its grievances he has quoted further Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that its claim forming subject matter in the instant appeal could not be raised without a “revised” return filed before the Assessing Officer.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the aforesaid case law makes it clear in para 4 thereof that a revised return is only for the necessary compliance before the Assessing Officer and the jurisdiction of various of appellate authorities under this provisions of the Act to this effect has nowhere been impinged upon. Learned counsel submits that there is no new claim in the assessee’s appeal of long as it has failed to apply for rectification in absence of any such remedy provided to the CPC. This Tribunal deems it appropriate in these facts and circumstances to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh proper adjudication as per law preferably within three effective opportunity of hearing subject to a rider that it shall bear the entire risk of pleading and proving all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.