TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riods provided under the Act and cannot set up periods of limitation different from that provided under the Act - the AO while passing the order dated 13 December 2011 on the rectification application has given no reasons whatsoever in support of its conclusion that the intimation dated 21 November 2008 under Section 143(1) of the Act calls for no rectification - It is only when the AO gives reasons in support of his order in the context of the application before him, could the same be tested by higher forums such as the CIT while dealing with an application for revision u/s 264 - the orders of the CIT dated 27 March 2014 and 17 July 2014 passed u/s 264 of the Act is set aside and on a rectification application made - the order dated 13 Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness or profession. The same was accepted by the Revenue and the intimation dated 21 November 2008 was issued to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 31 March 2009. (b) On 18 June 2009, the petitioner filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act seeking to rectify the intimation dated 21 November 2008. The petitioner filed its rectification application as under: With reference to the above, we thankfully acknowledge receipt of intimation under section 143(1) for AY 200708 showing a demand of ₹ 331,870/-. In this connection, we have to submit as under: That entire total income of ₹ 12,17,455/- declared in our return of income represented Long Term Capital Gains referred to in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (38) as stated by you. Accordingly, your return was processed taking ₹ 12,17,455/- as business income. As there is no mistake apparent from record, rectification application filed by you is hereby rejected. (d) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed on 18 October 2012 a revision application under Section 264 of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax. On 27 March 2014 the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application for revision on the following grounds: (i) the revision petition has been filed after the gap of ten months; (ii) the rectification application dated 6 December 2011 is filed three years after the date of Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act; and (iii) the petitioner could have filed a revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts the impugned orders. 5] We find that the order dated 13 December 2011 of the Assessing Officer rejecting the rectification application is bereft of any reasons. The Assessing officer is obliged to deal with the submissions of the petitioner in its rectification application before rejecting the application for rectification. A reasoned order is one of the essentials of principles of natural justice. We have reproduced the impugned order dated 13 December 2011 herein above and it is clear that no reasons whatsoever are indicated in the same for rejecting the rectification application. If this was not sufficient, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax has also rejected the revision application on grounds ignoring the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf provides a period of one year and also holding rectification application before the Assessing Officer is bad as there is a delay. Even though the rectification application was filed much before the statutory period of limitation had expired. Moreover, we find that the Assessing Officer while passing the order dated 13 December 2011 on the rectification application has given no reasons whatsoever in support of its conclusion that the intimation dated 21 November 2008 under Section 143(1) of the Act calls for no rectification. It is only when the Assessing Officer gives reasons in support of his order in the context of the application before him, could the same be tested by higher forums such as the Commissioner of Income Tax while dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
