The Kerala High court in the case of CIT v. A. Sreenivasa Pai (109TAX267) held that the right conferred on the assessee to revise a return u/s 139(5) is intended to rectify only some bona fide omissions or some inadvertent wrong statements. To come under the said provision, the omission or wrong statement that may have occurred or crept in (I) must be bonafide, and the assessee himself must have discovered (ii) Filing of a revised return after the revenue as a result of an enquiry discovers such omission or wrong statement would not save the assessee from consequences or intentional filing of false or incorrect return. In this case revised return was filed after the books were impounded for scrutiny.
However in the normal court the assessee has a right to revise his return for any omission. Such right can be exercised even if discovery of omission is pointed by the AO vide 411ITR1. In this case revised returns were filed after receipt of notice under section 10(1) of the Black Money Act submitting the details of foreign asset in Schedule FA earlier omitted in the original return. The Department stand that the revised return was not a voluntary act, but only after receipt of section 10(1) notice is found untenable for the simple reason that the revised return is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence prosecution initiated under BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX ACT, 2015 against the assessee was stalled.