9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original return. HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant filed its original return of income on 16.02.2015 declaring income at Rs. 1,28,42,730/-. Thereafter, on the very next day, it filed the revised return declaring the total income at Rs. NIL . During the assessment proceeding before the AO, the appellant explained that there was a punching error while filing return in e-filing portal. Also, it was submitted by the appellant that the accountant dealing with it, has erroneously inserted figure of 12842725 in the column amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowable u/s 40A in Row No. 16 in Schedule BP of the return form. We find that in the instant case there was no income for the impugned assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year of before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. In case of the assessee, revised return was not filed against the return filed u/s 139(1) or in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, it was invalid return as per the provision of Income Tax Act for the relevant year. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15 on 16.02.2016 declaring income at Rs. 1,28,42,730/-. Thereafter, on the very next day, the appellant filed revised return declaring total income at Rs. Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,28,42,730/- is shown as income for the A.Y. 2014-15 inadvertently as a result of punching error. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant had filed revised computation statement showing NIL . The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the correctness of the said revised computation statement has not been questioned by the AO. Further, relying on the decision in the case of Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon v/s. DCIT [2013] 155 TTJ 1 (Chandigarh), CIT v/s. Mr. P. Firm (56 ITR 67) (SC), CIT v/s. Keiser E-Hind Mills Co. Ltd. 128 ITR 486 (Guj.), the Ld. CIT(A) observed that substantial justice should be done ignoring pedantic and technical reasons, and only correct income should be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to accept the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn declaring the total income at Rs. NIL . During the assessment proceeding before the AO, the appellant explained that there was a punching error while filing return in e-filing portal. Also, it was submitted by the appellant that the accountant dealing with it, has erroneously inserted figure of 12842725 in the column amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowable u/s 40A (8Ai of Part-OI) in Row No. 16 in Schedule BP of the return form. As a result of the above error; the entry in Row No. D of Schedule BP came to be reflected as 12852040. This resulted in showing total income at. Rs. 1,28,42,730/-. We find that in the instant case there was no income for the impugned assessment year and as a result of punching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
