2025 (6) TMI 1946 - HC - Income Tax

Mistake to be corrected by filing of a revised return or u/s 264 as it was not an error apparent on record to be rectified u/s 154 - Profit on Sale of investment being assessable to tax under the head of income Capital Gains - appellant company however by mistake omitted to exclude/reduce the Profit on Sale of Investment by way of deduction and Sl. No. 3(b)- Income/Receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under other heads of income chargeable u/s 115BBF/chargeable u/s 115BBG of Schedule BP in the ITR. HELD THAT - When the matter was taken up today Respondent on instructions submitted that the appellant will be permitted to file its physical returns for consideration before the Central Processing Centre AO. Appellant has also placed a decision of Cosmo Films Limited 2019 (5) TMI 1067 - DELHI HIGH COURT where in similar circumstances the petitioner therein was allowed to file the returns manually. As the concession has been made by the respondents nothing remains for further consideration in the present appeal and the same is disposed of by directing the CPC AO to accept the revised returns filed by the appellant manually/physically for due consideration in accordance with law.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

• Whether a mistake in the Income Tax Return (ITR), specifically the omission to exclude/reduce profit on sale of investment by way of deduction under the relevant Schedule and Sections, can be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or requires correction by filing a revised return or under Section 264 of the Act.
• Whether the appellant company, having missed the digital filing deadline for revised returns for the relevant assessment year, can be permitted to file physical/manual revised returns.
• The permissibility and legal validity of filing physical returns in the context of the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) system, which primarily processes returns filed digitally.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake in Income Tax Return - Appropriate Procedure

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961 provides mechanisms for correction of errors or mistakes in returns. Section 154 allows rectification of "mistake apparent from the record," while Section 264 permits revision of orders on sufficient cause. Filing a revised return is also a recognized method to correct errors or omissions in the original return. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had previously held that the appellant's mistake was not an error apparent on record and thus not rectifiable under Section 154, nor was it an issue to be considered in appeal. They directed correction through revised returns or under Section 264.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the established position that mistakes which are not apparent on record cannot be rectified under Section 154. The appellant's omission to exclude/reduce the profit on sale of investment under the specified Schedule and Sections was a substantive error requiring correction by filing a revised return or invoking Section 264. This aligns with the prior administrative and judicial approach, as reflected in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant had disclosed the profit on sale of investments but failed to apply the deduction under the relevant provisions. The mistake was discovered post-filing, prompting an application under Section 154, which was rejected. The appellant's inability to file a revised return digitally due to expiry of the time limit was a factual impediment.

Application of law to facts: The Court confirmed that the appellant's recourse to Section 154 was misplaced. The correct procedural remedy was filing a revised return or seeking revision under Section 264. However, the appellant was prevented from filing a revised return digitally due to time constraints.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue authorities maintained that rectification under Section 154 was impermissible, consistent with the statutory scheme and prior orders. The appellant argued for leniency in filing revised returns physically, given the digital filing time limit had expired.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the position that correction of the mistake requires filing a revised return or revision under Section 264, not rectification under Section 154.

Issue 2: Permissibility of Filing Physical Revised Returns Post Digital Filing Deadline

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Department mandates digital filing of returns through the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC). The statutory and procedural framework emphasizes electronic filing, with limited or no provision for manual filing, especially after the expiry of prescribed deadlines. However, exceptional circumstances and judicial precedents have recognized the need for flexibility to prevent injustice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the practical difficulty faced by the appellant due to the digital filing deadline expiry, which barred filing revised returns electronically. The Court sought instructions from the Revenue regarding the possibility of permitting physical filing in such circumstances.

Key evidence and findings: The Revenue, upon inquiry, conceded that physical filing of revised returns could be permitted for consideration by the CPC AO. The appellant also cited a Delhi High Court decision where manual filing was allowed under similar facts.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the concession by the Revenue rendered the appellant's request for physical filing acceptable. This approach harmonizes the procedural requirements with the substantive right of the assessee to correct genuine mistakes in tax returns.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue initially resisted physical filing, citing incompatibility with CPC processes. Upon further consideration and instruction, the Revenue relented, recognizing the necessity to allow physical filing to avoid rendering the appellant's opportunity nugatory.

Conclusions: The Court directed the CPC AO to accept the revised returns filed physically/manual by the appellant for due consideration.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"A mistake which is not apparent on the face of the record cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such mistakes require correction by filing revised returns or by invoking Section 264 of the Act."

"In circumstances where the time limit for filing revised returns digitally has expired, and where the appellant is otherwise entitled to correct its return, the Income Tax authorities may permit filing of physical/manual revised returns for consideration, notwithstanding the general mandate for digital filing through the Centralised Processing Centre."

Core principles established include:

• The distinction between errors apparent on record (rectifiable under Section 154) and substantive errors requiring revised returns or revision under Section 264.
• The necessity of procedural flexibility to prevent denial of substantive rights due to rigid digital filing deadlines.
• The authority of the Income Tax Department to accept physical filing of revised returns in exceptional situations to ensure justice and proper tax administration.

Final determinations:

• The appellant's error was not rectifiable under Section 154.
• The correct remedy was filing a revised return or revision under Section 264.
• The appellant was permitted to file the revised return physically/manual despite the digital filing deadline having expired.
• The CPC AO was directed to accept and consider the physically filed revised returns in accordance with law.