TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid - This cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the face of record to compel the department to amend the intimation. The mistake on the part of the appellant assessee in not challenging the assessment order for 2004-2005 and not filing revised return for 2005-2006 has led the assessee to this situation - The entire difficulty in which the appellant is put in is on account of his mistake which cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the face of record so far as the intimation sent by the department and the same cannot be allowed to be rectified treating it as a mistake in the intimation of the department – thus, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant assessee – Decided against Assessee. - ITA. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs so far as 2004-2005 reached finality. 3. Coming to the assessment year 2005-2006, no revised return came to be filed declaring income under different heads, which could have been done by the appellant assessee on or before 31.3.2007, in spite of knowledge of disallowance of interest expenditure of 54,40,440/- for the previous year 2004- 2005. The department computed tax payable based on the return of income filed by the appellant assessee on 27.10.2005 and issued demand notice indicating Rs.93,016/- as short fall tax to be paid. 4. Subsequently, an application under Section 154(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act came to be filed seeking rectification of mistake alleged to have crept in in the intimation sent by the department demanding shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver of interest for the assessment year 2005-2006 on account of their impression that for earlier year 2004-2005 they would get benefit of interest expenditure. Atleast when disallowance of interest expenditure came to their knowledge, they could have revised their returns which apparently they did not do so. By this process, the appellant assessee though did not get the benefit of interest expenditure for assessment year 2004-2005, he had to pay again tax of 54,40,440/- though they had benefit of waiver of interest. Instead, the appellant assessee sought rectification of mistake by filing application under Section 154(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as under: "154.Rectification of mistake.- (1) With a view to rectifying any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
