9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider such revised return as there was only a correction of the mistake in the presentation of the correct figures in the column-15 and column-18 instead of clubbing the same in column-23 of the return and instead thereof, the respondent has enlarged the scope of Section 119 (2) (b) by not redressing such minor corrections to be made in the return of income and has rejected the same on the ground of genuine hardship and advising the petitioner to avail the other legal resources u/s 254 or Section 154 unmindful of the fact situation that there was no impact on the corrected return on the taxable income of the petitioner and it was only to facilitate the CPC to process the return so that the petitioner is entitled to the refund, if any, so as to compute the taxable income of the petitioner in accordance with law as provided under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act. The respondent no.2 ought to have allowed the applications to condone the delay in filing the corrected/revised return which was a formality only as only the correct presentation in Form-ITR-6 was not made by the petitioner which has prevented the CPC from processing the return. These petitions succeed and are accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/09/2019, the petitioner received an intimation from Centralized Processing Center (CPC) pointing out the mismatch in the form of return filed by the petitioner being the difference in the amount of dis-allowance of expenditure reported in tax audit report in Form 3CD but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return filed as the petitioner has clubbed the dis-allowance of expenditure in column-23 instead of column-15 and column-18. 5. On receipt of the above intimation, the petitioner filed corrected return of income after making corrections by showing dis-allowance of expenditure in correct column-15 and column-18 in the form of return by bifurcating the same from column-23 and total income of the petitioner remained unchanged. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the last date for filing the revised return as per Section 139 (5) of the Act was 31/03/2019 and as the petitioner had received intimation on 03/09/2019 i.e. after the expiry of the time limit available for filing revised return, the petitioner had no option but to file the corrected return online in electronic mode as per the intimation received from the CPC. 7. It appears that the CPC inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an intimation for the proposed adjustment either in the writing or in electronic mode and as per the second proviso on the response being received from the assessee, the same is required to be considered for making any adjustment. It was therefore submitted that when the respondent had intimated the petitioner with regard to the mistakes in the return of income by communication through electronic mode on 03/09/2019, the petitioner located the error in the form of return uploaded on 24/09/2018 and as time to file revised return had already expired, the petitioner filed corrected return in Form-ITR-6 which was uploaded on 06/09/2019. It was submitted that as there were two returns on the system in electronic form, the CPC transferred the returns of income filed by the petitioner to the JAO on 24/09/2019. The petitioner was also sent an intimation to that effect. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred an application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act for approving the revised return after condoning the delay in filing such corrected return. It was submitted that the petitioner in the applications filed on 30/07/2020 and 06/08/2020 explained the circumstances in which the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute that the petitioner had committed a mistake in showing the correct information in column-15 and column-18 and have clubbed the dis-allowance of expenditure claimed under Section 37 in column-23 which was pointed out by the CPC while analyzing the return as per the Centralized Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 by sending an intimation dated 03/09/2019 to the petitioner to give the response within thirty days. 19. The petitioner, therefore, in response to such intimation, filed the corrected/revised return on 06/09/2019 under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act and accordingly the CPC transferred the said corrected revised return to JAO on 24/09/2019. 20. Thereafter the petitioner filed the applications to condone the delay in filing the return in July 2020 and August, 2020 which were rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that there is no genuine hardship shown by the petitioner to revise the return. 21. As per the Centralized Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011, the Central Processing Center is formed as per Section 143(1A) and as per the power vested with the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 143(1A) of the Act and as per Clause-2(c) of the scheme, the center is de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing due to an error in data entry or a software error or otherwise, resulting in excess refund being computed or reduction in demand of tax, the same will be corrected on its own by the Centre by passing a rectification order and the excess amount shall be recovered as per the provisions of the Act. (v) Where a rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing the refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the person, an intimation to this effect shall be sent to the person electronically by the Centre and the reply of the person has to be furnished through electronic mode only." 23. Therefore the CPC issued the intimation dated 03/09/2019 pointing out the mistake in the return and therefore the petitioner was called upon to submit the response thereto. The petitioner having found such mistake has therefore rightly filed a corrected/revised return under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act as the time to file the revised return had already expired on 31/03/2019 as per the provision of Section 139 (5) of the Act. The respondent was therefore only required to consider such revised return as there was only a correction of the mistake in the presentation of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
