9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: The assessee is a NRI. For the assessment year 2012- 2013, return of income was filed on 08.08.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,51,96,230. The return of income consists of the following:- (i) Income from house property Rs. 1,76,807 (ii) Long term capital gain Rs.11,44,73,010 (iii) Income from other sources Rs. 5,46,410 Total income returned Rs.11,51,96,230 3.1 The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2015. The total income assessed was Rs. 11,67,98,280. 3.2 The assessee filed an appeal to the first appellate authority contending that the long term capital gain computed by the assessee was mistake. According to the assessee, instead of stating the cost of acquisition as Rs. 20,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I confirmation of assessee's investment of 2 lakh shares of value of Rs. 20 lakh in the company M/s.Agnice Fire Protection Limited. Form No.2 as regards the allotment of shares is also furnished. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A). It was contended that it is only an inadvertent mistake and same should have been corrected by the CIT(A). It was submitted that this inadvertent mistake has resulted in overstating of capital investment by a sum of Rs. 27,22,543. 5. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the first appellate authority's order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue raised in the present appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 has held that assessment proceedings are not adversarial in nature. If any mistake is found in the computation filed by the assessee, it is the lawful obligation cast on the Assessing Authority to correct it. It is immaterial, whether such correction benefits the assessee or Revenue. 6.3 In a case, Rachna S Talreja V s. DCIT (Mum) (T), considered by ITAT, assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed revised computation of income and claimed additional deduction in respect of payment of interest. Assessing Authority refused to consider the revised claim on the ground that the assessee has not filed any revised return u/s.139(5). In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order relying on Goetze (Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observation of the Hon'ble High Court reads as follows:- "11. It is beyond dispute that the powers of the Assessing Officers under the Act are quasi-judicial in nature and they are duty-bound, therefore, to act fairly in the discharge of their functions. They are also invested with the authority to do justice to the assessees. True, in a given case where the self- assessment made by an assessee is proposed to be revised on the ground that the deduction made by him in the return under a particular head is inadmissible, the Assessing Officer, in the absence of a revised return, would proceed on the basis of the facts disclosed by the assessee in the return. But, in a case where it is apparent on the face of the record that the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
