Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 221 - HC - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - Exemption/deduction u/s 10B denied - returns was filed beyond the period of limitation - petitioner had failed to claim the benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 10B as per Section 80(5) of the IT, 1961 in Income Tax Returns - petitioner was acquired to make a claim in the said Returns filed under Section 139, thus no such deductions are claimed when the Returns filed under Section 139 no deduction can be allowed - HELD THAT:- Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143 (1) (a) cannot be said to be an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer as it is based on the Returns filed by the petitioner. Assessments under IT Act, 1961 are driven based on the Returns that are filed under Section 139 of the IT Act, 1961. In Annamallais Agencies [2002 (9) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has accepted the proposition that for the purpose of rectification of error apparent on the face of record can be corrected. The expression record is not merely confined to error/mistake in the Assessment Order. It would include the mistake in Return and documents which accompanied the Returns as a part of the record. If there has been omission on the part of the Assessing Officer therein to take note of the contents of that record, while making his order, the mistake in the assessment can be rectified. Though the said order is dated 28.03.2008, it is the case of the petitioner that the intimation was received by the petitioner only on 18.05.2008 by which time, the time to file revised returns under Section 139(5) had already expired on 31.03.2008. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioner was to file rectification petitioner before the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961, which the petitioner did by filing of rectification petition on 18.08.2009. Assessing Officer by an order dated 06.10.2009 rejected the same while recording that the petitioner had enclosed the revised returns by stating that the assessee had filed the return on 30.11.2006 and if there was any mistake found in the returns, the petitioner could have to filed a revised return on or before 31.03.2008. The intimation issued under Section 1431A of the IT Act, 1961 is dated 28.03.2008. It is about 3 days prior to the expiry of limitation for filing revised return on 31.03.2008. Even if the intimation dated 28.03.2008 was despatched on the said date after it was signed in all likelihood, it could not have been received by the petitioner on 31.03.2008 to file a revised returns in time. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for rectification under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. Rejection of the application for rectification by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 was unjustified, considering the fact that the petitioner is entitled to substantive the benefit and delay, if any, wholly attributed on account of the system. Rejection of the revision application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 08.03.2011 and vide order dated 25.02.2013 impugned herein, it is also not justified as the officers acting under the IT Department are duty bound to extend substantive benefits that are legitimately available to an assessee. Dealing with a somewhat similar case, this Court in M/s.Craftsman Automation P Ltd., Coimbatore [2020 (2) TMI 1538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has allowed the benefit where returns was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961. WP Allowed
|