TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'learned CIT(A)'] has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order, dated 20-10-2003, passed by learned Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2). 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in fact, in holding that the learned Deputy Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(2) was justified in rejecting the appellant's application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so corresponds to '04' status shown in the return. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-XXIX,New Delhi. He came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not changed the status as shown by the assessee in the return. The Assessing Officer merely calculated the tax by applying the rate of 35 per cent, applicable in the case of a firm. Thus, there was no error apparent from record in the order of intimation. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed the return in the status of an unregistered firm (URF), which was stated in audit report. On perusal of the report, it is seen that the status mentioned in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Packers (India) v. ITO [2006] 99 ITD 383, in which it was held that while processing return under section 143(1), the Assessing Officer cannot change income on any ground including that of deduction of depreciation. She also relied on the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', in the case of Choice Acquaculture (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 143, in which it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot change income under section 143(1) by adopting correct figure of the Written Down Value (WDV) brought forward from the earlier year. 4. In reply, the learned DR pointed out that the assessee is a firm of solicitors inSingaporeand it has carried out its professional activities inIndiaalso. In the return under verification, it had sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the income or status without making inquiry from the assessee, which cannot be done in such processing. Past record regarding status can also be not taken into account, as argued by the learned counsel. As pointed out by the ld. D.R., there were evidences in the return, including under verification, which lead to inference that the assessee was a 'Firm', which did not comply with the provisions contained in section 184, thus, it could be assessed as firm under section 185. However, the fact also stays that the assessee computed its tax under section 167B and paid it accordingly. This was its manifest assertion that it was either an "AOP" or a "BOI' (Body of Individuals). The return as a whole was ambivalent about the status of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
