2023 (12) TMI 139 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of intimation sent u/s 143(1) - According to the petitioner, while computing the amount in terms of Section 143(1) an error occurred with regard to the cost of the goods produced by the petitioner - HELD THAT - It appears that there is an error apparent on face of the record to the extent of mentioning the wrong figures with regard to the cost of goods as (-)Rs. 5,69,68,434/- instead of Rs. 39,87,66,401/-. No doubt, the said error has to be rectified and hence, the petitioner had filed a rectification application before the 1st respondent. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that if there is any rectification in the intimation sent under Section 143(1) of the Act, only the 2nd respondent has to carry out the rectification and hence the first respondent had rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Thus the impugned order is set aside - While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the 2nd respondent for the purpose of consideration of the rectification application, which has been filed by the petitioner - 2nd respondent is directed to enable the petitioner to file an appropriate application for rectification of intimation issued under Section 143 of the Act and pass order in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order refusing the rectification of an intimation sent under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding an error in the cost of goods produced by the petitioner.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Error in cost of goods produced
The petitioner claimed that an error occurred in the computation of the cost of goods produced, as the amount provided by the petitioner was Rs. 39,87,66,401/-, but in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, it was shown as (-)Rs. 5,69,68,434/-. The petitioner filed a rectification application before the 1st respondent, who rejected it, stating that only the 2nd respondent had jurisdiction to consider such applications.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction for rectification
The respondent acknowledged the error in mentioning the cost of goods produced but argued that the 1st respondent was not the proper officer to consider the rectification application. The respondent contended that only the 2nd respondent had the authority to rectify such errors. Thus, the 1st respondent rightly rejected the rectification application.

The Court noted the error in recording the cost of goods produced and agreed that it needed rectification. However, it held that only the 2nd respondent had the authority to carry out the rectification. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent for consideration of the rectification application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to file the application within 60 days, and the 2nd respondent was instructed to enable the petitioner to do so within 30 days of filing. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for other issues without limitation constraints.

With these directions, the writ petitions were disposed of, with no costs awarded and the connected miscellaneous petition closed.