9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of income also on the very same day, which even contains the e-filing acknowledgement number and therefore, the learned A.O. ought not to have rejected the petition for rectification - HELD THAT:- We note that the assessee filed original return on 29.10.2013 showing NIL income and no refund was claimed. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return claiming refund of Rs. 55,623 which was not sent to CPC within the due date. CPC processed the original return on 12.03.2015. The assessee sent the Acknowledgement of Revised Return in ITR-V to CPC on 20.10.2017. The assessee filed rectification application on 16.08.2017. We note that the assessee had put the figures in the wrong column in its original return instead of appropriate column ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r having filed the revised return was not sent to the CPC within 30 days from date of filing the return and hence, the intimation continued to exist in the eyes of law and the same ought to have been rectified by considering the claim of exemption in the revised return under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant had committed a bonafide error in filing up the columns while filing the original return of income and hence, the appellant had filed a revised return of income also on the very same day, which even contains the e-filing acknowledgement number and therefore, the learned A.O. ought not to have rejected the petition for rectification on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12.03.2015 raising a demand of Rs. 20,38,178. The assessee filed rectification application before the ITO(E), Mysore on 16.08.2017 against demand notice of Rs. 20,87,210 vide communication letter dated 16.01.2017. The AO rejected the rectification request by order dated 04.09.2017 against which assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 3. The CIT(Appeals) also rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- "5.1 Ground No. 1 to 4 of the appellant pertains to the order passed by A.O. u/s 154 of the Act on 04.09.2017, the same is reproduced as under:- "The assessee, a Charitable Trust registered u/s.12A, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.10 2013 declaring the total income at Rs. NI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. not claiming exemption u/s 11 is not mistake apparent from record on the other hand the appellant admitted the mistake which he has done in the original return filed on 29.10.2013. The appellant further submitted in Para 7.1 of his written submissions that it was a technical mistake. I have gone through the contention of the appellant and find that the appellant has already filed a revised return hence there is no cause of action lying with the original return there is a no order before the A.O. which was required rectification u/s 154. The rectification is only to rectify the mistake apparent from record in case of any order passed as mentioned in the said section. As discussed in this case there is no order which requires rectificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income was calculated at Rs. 0 in the return. However, on the same day the appellant filed a revised return on 29.10.2013 rectifying the above mistake and the appellant reported the entire total of the Income & Expenditure account as well as the expenses in Schedule-OS and arrived at a loss of Rs. 26,80,456. 5. Thus it is submitted that there has been error only in filling up the figures in the return of income which figures are undisputedly derived from the audited balance sheet before the AO. The appellant omitted to send the acknowledgement for filing revised return in ITRV by oversight. However, the revised return is also reflected in the efiling portal as is evident from the screenshot (at page 51 of PB). 6. Although the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e way to claim and secure reliefs due to them. Accordingly, she requested that the matter may be remitted to AO for fresh consideration. 8. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has wrongly put the figures in the return of income and accordingly the CPC processed the return and raised the demand. He submitted revised return was filed on the same day, but signed acknowledgement was not sent to CPC within the specified date, therefore the revised return is non est in the eyes of law. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All) and submitted that the revise return has no value. 9. Considering the rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
