9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular No. 14(XL35) dated 1110411955 provides for responsible assessment that the Assessing Authority to have reasonable approach in completing an assessment, to grant lawful and eligible deduction to the assessee, even if it was not claimed by the assessee. Assessing Authority has to see that the Income of the assessee has been determined after allowing all the lawful outgoings and statutory deductions. The recent judgment in the case of Raghavan Nair v. ACIT [2018 (1) TMI 863 - KERALA HIGH COURT] had held that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to refrain from assessing an non-taxable income returned by the assessee on mistaken understanding. We are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the relief sought for in this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istake. According to the assessee, instead of stating the cost of acquisition as ₹ 20,00,000 by an inadvertent mistake, it mentioned as ₹ 2 lakh (the number of shares instead of cost of shares). According to the assessee this mistake had resulted in overstating of long term capital gain by ₹ 27,22,543. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contention raised by the assessee by observing as under:- 4.2 I have perused the facts available on record. This mistake on part of the appellant is not a part of the assessment order. It is seen that the appellant has not filed a revised return, rectifying his own mistake. He also did not bring this mistake to the notice of the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal is regarding the correction of an mistake crept into the computation statement of income. The assessee had purchased 2,00,000 shares @ ₹ 10 per share; the cost of acquisition being ₹ 20,00,000. But, while marking the cost at ₹ 20,00,000 in the Capital Gains Computation, by mistake it was marked as ₹ 2,00,000 (the number of shares instead of the cost of shares). This mistakes has resulted in an error of overstating the Capital Gains by ₹ 27,22,543. 6.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the prayer of the assessee on a technical ground that the mistake was committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider 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 (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). But, the ITAT admitted the additional claim and allowed the appeal referring to Pradeepkumar Harlarkar V s. ACIT (2011) 47 SOT 2014 URO (Mum)(Trib). 6.4 In Ricoh India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 264(Mum) (Trib), it was held that the restriction discussed in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) applies to Assessing Authority alone and not apply to Appellate Authorities. 6.5 In the present case, the assessee is not claiming any new/additional deduction. The prayer is to adopt the correct amount of Capital Gains, the particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 included in his return, an income which is exempted from payment of Income-tax, on account of ignorance or by mistake, according to me, the Assessing Officer is bound to take into account the said fact in a proceeding under section 143 of the Act. In other words, if the capital gains on a transaction is exempted from payment of tax, the Assessing Officer has a duty to refrain from levying tax on the said capital gains and the Assessing Officer cannot, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under section 143 of the Act to the assessee on the technical plea that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
