9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation u/s 143(1) is not permissible. If any Rectification was to be effected in the intimation it can be done u/s 143(3) and not by exercising power u/s 154. Accordingly the issue is restored back to the CIT(A) with the direction to first address the correct facts as the facts noticed by the CIT(A) in the impugned order do not reconcile with the consistent findings of the AO in the 143(3) order and the 154 order. After addressing the correct factual position, the CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - I.T.A .No.-2289/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2016 - SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. For The Assessee : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and which deserves to be quashed. 4. That the appellant craves to leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order submitted that the AO in the 143(3) proceedings has recorded the fact and started from the position that the assessee has e-filed its return on 20.09.2010 declaring an income of ₹ 96,450/-. It was his submission that infact he would be able to demonstrate from the material on record that the assessee had e-filed its return declaring NIL income. In response to the notice u/s 143(2) dated 06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 96,542/- against which brought forward losses of the same amount has been claimed and income has been computed at Nil. Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 26.01.2011 reveals that though the assessee has claimed loss of ₹ 96,543/-, brought from previous years but in the processing u/s 143(1) no such adjustment has been allowed and thus, aggregate income has been computed at ₹ 96,540/-. Thus, it is seen that brought forward losses have not been allowed to the assessee in the intimation u/s 143(1) for A. Y. 2009- 10. If there was any mistake, it was in the intimation u/s 143(1). As far as order u/s 143(3) is concerned, the income has been adopted as per intimation u/s 143( 1). Therefore, there is no mistake rectifiable u/s 154 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee himself at ₹ 32,276/-. Claim of TDS amounting to ₹ 4,555/- was also taken and after taking benefit of TDS of ₹ 4,555/- balance tax payable at ₹ 27,722/- was paid as Self Assessment. On going through above facts, the then A.O. was correct in taking returned income at ₹ 96,540/- which was reflected in the return Efiled by the assessee and issue of set off of losses is not genuine. (emphasis provided) 4.1. Addressing the impugned order it was her submission that though the CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee has e-filed its return declaring NIL income it was her argument that mistake if in any order may have been in intimation u/s 143(1) and was not in the order u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
