9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income for ₹ 1,15,69,580, was not reported as exempt income in Schedule E1. Hence, the CPC was justified in making the adjustment, because the claim was inconsistent with item in the return of income. Rectification u/s 154 of the Act is not obligatory on the part of the AO if clear data is not available and in this regard we rely on the judgment of Anchor Processing Pvt. Ltd.[ 1986 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] The assessee failed to submit revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act to take care of the omission in the original return of income. This is an appeal against order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act. The scope is narrow and constricted and merits of claim need not be explored. The learned Authorised Representative pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is engaged in the activities of farming of mushrooms. The income from the said activity is in the nature of agricultural income and hence it is exempt from taxation. During the year under consideration, the assessee has earned an agricultural income of ₹ 1,15,69,581, and the same was claimed as exempt. The resultant income (i.e.) ₹ 1,15,69,580, was claimed as an exempt by the assessee while filing return of income and the total income was returned as nil. However, the Central Processing Centre [CPC] processed return of income but did not grant exemption while computing the business income. On perusal of the intimation, it was found that the said disallowance is based on incorrect claim as the schedule of exempt income was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it was an inadvertent error of clerk made while submitting the income tax return for AY 2018-19. I have enclosed the screenshots of errors made. 3. In view of the above I have to conclude that while processing a return u/s 143(1), CPC cannot compensate for a failure of the appellant to make a correct claim of any exemption. Therefore, the CPC is correct in saying that since there is no apparent mistake in the order u/s 143(1), it could not corrected in u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. 4. The correct alternative for the appellant would have been to file a revised return within time available for it, or file such revised return after getting any delay condoned by the Administrative Commissioner. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 97 [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 98 [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading C. Deductions in respect of certain incomes , if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in a case where the loss declared in the return by the assessee is adjusted but no tax, interest or fee is payable by, or no refund is due to, him: Provided further that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of 99 [nine months] from the end of the financial year in which the return is made. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, (a) an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return, (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 154 of the Act. The scope is narrow and constricted and merits of claim need not be explored. The learned Authorised Representative pressed that the income was accepted to be exempt as agricultural income in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. But at this stage, we are precluded from examination of the merit of the claim. The learned Departmental Representative rightly pointed out that when the assessee himself has conceded the mistake before the learned CIT(A), he has no arguable case any further. The appeal has no merits since there is no patent and manifest error amenable for rectification and hence liable to be dismissed. Thus, we are in consonance with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) who upheld the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
