Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 50 - ITAT PUNERectification of mistake u/s 154 - rectify the charge of interest income under the head Income from Other Sources[IOS]- contention of the assessee firm that the said amount of interest was wrongly added while filing ITR - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s retuned income, after due examination and verification was accepted by an order dt. 07/12/2017 u/s 143(3) - Subsequently, on the receipt of demand intimation from CPC, the appellant finding fault with the tax liability determined u/s 143(3) of the Act, filed a rectification application dt. 14/05/2019 u/s 154 seeking thereby deletion of interest income charged to tax under IOS, alleging it as erroneously crept-in while filing the ITR, which both the Ld. TAB rejected as falling outside the jurisdiction of section 154 of the Act. In our considered view, no error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it does not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. As in the present case, the appellant after culmination of regular assessment proceedings brought up the matter u/s 154 before the Ld. TAB alleging the interest income charged to tax u/s 143(3) of the Act as unearned and wrongly crept-in in the ITR, which invariably requires to be established so only by re-examination of records which ispo-fact falls outside the jurisdiction of section 154 of the Act. Since the plea of the appellant is neither visible nor obvious nor self-evident on the face of the records which can be established without having re-examined the facts in the light of evidential document and without any lengthy and complicated arguments, hence to our considered view, sails out of apparent from record, for the reasons we approbate the action of both the Ld. TAB in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment of “ITO Vs Volcart Bros.” [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that “the mistake apparent from records must be obvious and patent, that is, the mistake may be a mistake of fact or mistake of law but it must not involve a debatable point of law.” Appeal dismissed.
|