Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee cannot be denied especially in the circumstances as narrated above. As such the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 43B of the Act and therefore in our considered view, the same should have been allowed by the authorities below. The income of the assessee should not be over assessed even if there is a mistake made by the assessee. As such the legitimate deduction for which the assessee is entitled should be allowed while determining the taxable income. Thus the claim of the assessee cannot be denied for the reason that a deduction was mentioned in wrong classification in ITR especially in the circumstances where all other evidence is available on record suggesting the deduction in pursuance to the provisions of section 43B is avail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the gratuity paid of Rs. 79,25,442/- as allowances under section 43B in Part-A OI Schedule under 10(b) instead showing it under any other allowance Schedule BP A-33 Column in the Income Tax Return. The appellant has submitted that the said amount has been incorrectly claimed as deduction u/s 43B of the Act instead of claiming it under any other allowance in Schedule BP. Since there was no reporting of such amount by the auditor in its audit report in Form 3CD, CPC Bengaluru disallowed the same while processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. 6. In the mean while, appellant on 06.01.2022 filed Revised Tax Audit Report and revised ITR-6 for AY 2020-21. Vide rectification request dated 06.01.2022 also prayed for to rectify the technical error u/s 154 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity paid of Rs. 79,25,442/- as allowances under section 43B in Part-A OI Schedule under 10(b) instead showing it under any other allowance Schedule BP A-33 Column in the Income Tax Return. The appellant has further submitted that the said amount has been incorrectly claimed in part A OI Schedule under 10 (b) as deduction u/s 43B of the Act instead of claiming it under any other allowance in Schedule BP A-33 . As per the Ld. Counsel a genuine claim of the assessee cannot be denied merely on account of mismatch of an audit report in Form 3CD. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r issued by the CBDT Circular No: 14 (XL-35) dated April 11, 1955. It states: Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. This Court, in an unreported decision in case of Vinay Chandulal Satia v. N.O. Parekh, CIT [Spl. Civil Application No. 622 of 1981 dated 20-8-1981], has laid down the approach that the authorities must adopt in such matters in the following terms: The Supreme Court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal v. Rewa Coal fields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 and Babutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte AIR 1975 SC 1297, that the State authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizen shave a lawful right and the lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The Stat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates