Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (12) TMI 938 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 154 - seeking amendment in the Intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) in respect of the income claimed as wrongly returned i.e. by way of a mistake - HELD THAT - AO in the instant case would be required to decide as to whether the mistake in the return furnished by the assessee is or lies as claimed by him in disclosing mistakenly additional income (Rs. 14.05 lacs) or as inferred by the Revenue in computing his tax liability incorrectly i.e. corresponding to the additional tax liability on the said additional income. That the tax amount computed agrees with the income claimed as returned incorrectly makes it an either or situation so that as afore-stated either could be correct and the same has to be determined in the conspectus of the case. The insistence of the Revenue on one in preference to the other without in any manner stating as to why it considers it as so cannot be sustained. In fine the same i.e. the decision one way or the other ought to be a result of a considered opinion based on material on record per a speaking order. The assessee in this regard claims that the impugned income is of a non-existent business returned by mistake with his balance-sheet for the current year being in continuation of the closing balance-sheet for the immediately preceding year and further and similarly the balance-sheet for the succeeding year also in agreement with that for that current year so that all the three represent a continuum even as additional income is only for the current year. This argument surely valid and corroborative of his claim made per submissions before the ld. CIT(A) do not find any mention in the impugned order. The matter in view of the foregoing is restored back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh on merits and in accordance with law per a speaking order after hearing the assessee being also the mandate of sec. 154. Needless to add the AO shall require the assessee to file all the required documents which must be contemporaneous and proven in support of his return of income. In this context we find on record (PB-1 pg. 9) a return for the current year reflecting the income claimed as correct filed on 14/11/2018. How has the same been filed is not clear. Further it may be in view of our stating of either of the two mistakes as possible both of which though simultaneously cannot be does not make the issue contentious or debatable. We may clarify that we are conscious that the Intimation in the instant case was passed on 09/5/2013 while the rectification application under appeal is that filed on 27/11/2018 so that it is apparently outside the time limit u/s. 154(7). In Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1 995 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT it stood explained that the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in section 154(7) was not qualified in any way and it did not necessarily mean the original order it could be any order including the amended or rectified order. The assessee has in the instant case as afore-noted made several applications the first being on 07/7/2013 with the first responded to by the Revenue being dated 03/12/2015. The proceedings accordingly are valid.
|