Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - mistake was apparent or fresh claim of exemption u/s 11 - Mistake in personal details / information - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) were both of view that as revised return is not filed the claim of exemption u/s 10 read with section 12A cannot be sustained. A distinction needs to be made here between a revised return which is filed, before the Department completes assessment. A rectification, on the other hand, can be filed only after assessee receives an intimation Section 143(1) or assessment order is passed and intimated to the assessee. So rectification application is more appropriate a remedy when assessment is complete and assessee claims on the basis of the assessment record available with the AO, that there is a mistake apparent in the order arising from the assessment record and same be rectified. What is important here in the case in hand is that the mistake was in the Part A of the return which calls for personal information of the assessee. Assessee was supposed to submit “YES” in the column in point B to Part A-GEN of the Return meant to disclose date of approval/ registrations etc, to claim of benefit of exemption u/s 10 read with 12A of the Act. It seems that mistakenly “NO” was mentioned by the assessee and relevant information about registration etc. was shown as “NO”. In Part B of the return under the head statement of income for the period ended on 31/3/2013 income from other sources is shown and in deductions at relevant places amount applied for charitable/ religious places and amount accumulated or set apart have been disclosed, with total deduction claim shown. At the same time in computation of income, which was part of the Return, as available at Page no 34 of PB, Amount applied to charitable purposes, amount deemed to be applied and accumulated amount has been shown at Rs 3,74,58,598/- and accordingly Gross Total Income is shown as NIL. The matter of fact is that the CPC while considering the return of the assessee had issued an notice dated 13.08.2019 for payment of outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2013-14 in which it was mentioned that there was an outstanding demand. At the same time it was mentioned that if the assessee does not agree with the computation of the income he can seek online rectification by providing the correct data. Reminders issued by CPC are available where demand identification No. 2014201337066018840T is mentioned and outstanding demand of Rs. 1,42,46,510/- is shown. The assessee has placed intimation wherein reason for the demand raised has been mentioned that the assessee has not provided details of 12A/ 12AA registration and other details, but exemption u/s 11 is claimed. It mentioned that this can be resolved by filing an online rectification and correcting the details. The aforesaid discussion has helped this bench to reach a conclusion that the primarily the mistake was one which was in the personal information of the assessee. Such a mistake is always rectifiable at any stage. Then it can be observed that computation of income and return filed together form part of the assessment record. It is not so that the assessee has not claimed exemption at all. The claim was there in the computation of income, with complete details available with regard to nature of income earned and how the income was utilized in accordance with the law to claim the exemption. There was material on record to support the claim of relief u/s 11 of the Act. It is not the case where the record in the form of Computation, being part of Return, did not contain any material to show there was claim of exemption. Thus acutully it cannot be said that a new or fresh claim was being raised without revising the return. Even the intimation issued calling for payment of demand and it”s annexure A, as discussed, above establish that the nature of mistake was such that it could have been rectified u/s 154 of the Act itself. There is no doubt in the mind of the bench that the ld Tax Authorities below have fallen in error in not taking into consideration the rectification application. The nature of mistake, as discussed, is one which falls into the definition of mistake apparent from the record and was liable to corrected without any requirement of a revised return. Consequently, the ground No. 1 deserves to be allowed.
|