9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neration from audited financial statement, an apparent mistake has been committed. In the absence of opportunity to the assessee contemplated in proviso to Section 143(1)(a) the difficulty has been compounded. The mistake could have been avoided while processing the return itself. The mistake in adopting incorrect figure without opportunity mandated in law despite availability of correct position is a mistake of apparent nature and espouses the purpose rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. The pedantic approach adopted by the CIT(A) does not take into account the denial of opportunity to assessee in this regard and thus cannot be countenanced. We thus set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) in question and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification of mistake while processing intimation under Section 143(1) and reversal of the disallowance. The rectification under Section 154 was however passed by the AO (CPC) reiterating the adjustments and without any relief. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of rectification, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), in turn, passed order dated 04.12.2022 against the impugned rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21 in question. The CIT(A) broadly observed that as per clause no.21(c) to Form 3CD, i.e., the Tax Audit Report states that amount admissible under Section 40(b) stands at Rs.1,50,000/- only as against the remuneration actually paid to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,276/- before set off of earlier years business losses and depreciation loss to the extent of taxable income of Rs.1,66,50,276/- for the year under consideration. After setting of the losses of earlier years, balance depreciation loss of Rs.3,49,998/- remained to be carried forward for set off in subsequent years. As contended, the impugned adjustment under Section 40b(v) towards deductibility of partners remuneration has been made by CPC owing to gross misreporting of facts in the tax audit report wherein the tax auditor has inadvertently copied the figures of the preceding assessment year in respect of subject matter of rectification in place of current year figures. A certificate to this effect was obtained from the tax auditor modifyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (Mum) 137 Taxmann.com 475. Thus, the clerical and bona fide mistake of apparent nature deserves to be rectified to shun miscarriage of justice. 7. We find force in the plea of the assessee. Admittedly, the figures entered towards partner remuneration in the P L account are inconsistent with the tax audit report due to human error while making report under Section 44AB of the Act. The certificate of the tax auditor presenting correct position was also made available to the lower authorities. On the face of inaccuracy in adopting the correct figure of remuneration from audited financial statement, an apparent mistake has been committed. In the absence of opportunity to the assessee contemplated in proviso to Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
