2023 (1) TMI 1210 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - disclosures made in the return were wrongly picked up or missed out while the return was processed u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT - Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return for the year under consideration with assessed income and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20-07-2014. Thereafter, the assessee submitted an application dated 08-09-2017 with a request to allow the loss on depreciation on building which was claimed in the Income Tax Return and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand raised on processing of Income Tax Return u/s 143(1) dated 20-07-2014. From the material placed on record, it is found that the assessee has not been able to confirm that the disclosures made in the return were wrongly picked up or missed out while the return was processed u/s 143(1). The AO had only denied the relief in the absence of any such clear cut evidence and the ld. AR has also failed to point out as to what was the mistake committed by the Revenue Authority while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not filed any appeal against the relief denied to the assessee but at the same time the assessee could not point out the mistake committed by the Revenue Authority. In this situation, the Bench does not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee which is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on building
2. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Depreciation on Building
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee challenged the disallowance of depreciation on a building used for business purposes, resulting in an additional tax liability. The ld. AR did not press Ground No. 1 during the hearing, leading to its dismissal. Regarding Ground No. 2, the assessee requested to allow the loss on depreciation on the building claimed in the Income Tax Return and sought rectification to reduce the demand raised earlier. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the loss claim had already been considered, and there was no defect in the demand raised. The appellant failed to provide clear evidence that the disclosures in the return were wrongly processed under section 143(1). The Bench noted that the assessee did not appeal against the relief denial and could not demonstrate any mistake by the Revenue Authority in processing the return. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2: Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C
Ground No. 3 of the assessee raised concerns about the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C, which was stated to be consequential in nature. The interest amounts were specified as Rs.21,712 and Rs.9,018, respectively. However, no detailed analysis or arguments were provided in the judgment regarding this issue. The dismissal of the appeal did not specifically address the charging of interest under these sections, as the focus was primarily on the disallowance of depreciation on the building.

In conclusion, the ITAT Jaipur dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The issues of disallowance of depreciation on the building and charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C were considered, with the appeal being dismissed primarily due to the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's claims and failure to demonstrate any errors in the processing of the return under section 143(1).