9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. None of the lower authorities have disputed the said factual matrix of the case in terms of both the computation of depreciation as per Income Tax Act and relates rules, and the quantum thereof so reflected in the tax returns of both the years and same being clearly a mistake which is apparent from the record and in respect of which there could not be any two opinions, being purely a factual matter which is clearly emerging from the record, we hereby direct the AO to take into consideration the opening balance of WDV and work out the claim of the depreciation and determine taxable income accordingly. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA NO. 358 /Chd/ 2022 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2023 - SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JM And SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , AM For the Assessee : None ( Adj. Application Rejected ) For the Revenue : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur , Sr. DR ORDER PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , A. M. : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 23/11/2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17 wherein the sole ground of appeal reads as under: That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Nation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held by the AO that mistake was committed by the assessee while filing its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and assessee had the option of filing the revised return under section 139(5) to rectify its mistake and since the same has not happened the application of the assessee u/s 154 was rejected by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the AO that while filing its return of income it had inadvertently and wrongly taken opening balance of WDV of fixed assets as per the Companies Act instead of Income Tax Act and the AO has not given effect to its bonafide error. It was further submitted that the same is clearly a mistake apparent from the record and does not require any long drawn process of reasoning or a matter where there could be any two opinions and following written submissions were filed during the appellate proceedings: Since, all the grounds of appeal are linked to each other, hence we submit common submissions for all the grounds of appeal. 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of abovesaid bonafide error, the assessee company filed application for rectification dated 08.05.2019 u/s154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Assessing officer, however, the Ld. A.O rejected the rectification application abruptly and without even analyzing the facts of the case by simply giving text of section 154 in the rectification order and stating in last para of order that, After perusal of submission of the assessee, it is observed that the claim of the assessee does not fall within the ambit of provision of section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for making rectification. The mistake was committed by the assessee while filing return of income u/s 139(1) and the assessee had the option of filing revised return u/s 139(5) to rectify the mistake. Keeping in view of the above application of the assessee is hereby rejected and stands disposed of. 4. It is further submitted that the income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings. As to who is responsible for the mistake is not material for the purpose of proceedings under section 154; what is material is that there is a mistake- a mistake which is clear, glaring and which is incapable of two views being taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o point out which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. 9. Therefore, in view of the above submissions and judicial pronouncements relied on and as a matter of natural justice, you are requested to pass order to allow assessee company to claim correct depreciation of Rs. 4888526/- and accordingly direct Ld. A.O to rectify the computation of income made while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We hope your honour will find the above submissions in order. In case any further information is needed, the same shall be submitted on hearing from your good office. 6. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the Ld. CIT(A) and it was held as under: 5.2 The appellant has referred to the judgement in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 460. However, the case of the appellant varies from the above referred judgement in respect of the particular issue of contention. The judgement in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India may be looked into whereby the decision clearly spells out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
