TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are convinced with the explanations given by the ld. AR as stated supra as they are completely borne out from the facts on record. In the instant case, the ld. AO also had not disposed of the rectification petition filed by the assessee on 9.7.2013 pointing out the aforesaid mistake. We find that the ld. CIT(A) upheld. the action of the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee had not filed any revised return of income to justify its claim. We would. like to mention here in this regard that it is well settled that the revenue cannot take undue advantage of the ignorance of the assessee or genuine mistake committed by the assessee and is always duty bound to assess only the real income of the assessee. See ACIT vs Rupam Impex [2016 (1) TMI 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly ₹ 10,79,809/- and tax thereon was duly paid along with the return of income. In fact the tax paid by the assessee would. work out only for the income of ₹ 10,79,809/- . It was pleaded that if the income which was filed electronically is considered i.e. ₹ 86,96,990/- , then there would. be substantial increase in tax liability of the assessee which was not the case as could. be evident from the ITR V Acknowledgement, wherein the income was reflected at ₹ 86,96,990/- , whereas the tax payable was reflected only at ₹ 3,33,661/-. The assessee understood that this was clearly an error in the return which was filed electronically. The ld. AO determined the total income at ₹ 86,96,990/- u/s 143(1) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 4.12.2012 (Pages 42 43 of PB). The assessee referred to page 43 of PB containing the reconciliation of mistake in processing of income filed before the ld. CIT(A) which was ignored by the ld. CIT(A) as below:- Reconciliation of Mistake in Processing of Income Correct Income 10,79,809 Processed Income 86,96,986 Income increased in Processing 76,17,177 Reconciliation Partners Remuneration debited in P L A/c 8,79,859 Partners Remuneration allowable as per computation (3,79,302 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the lower authorities had grossly erred in not appreciating the genuine mistake that crept in the ITR Return form. In response to this, the ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that provisions of section 154 of the Act are meant only for correcting the mistakes of the ld. AO and not the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the ld. AR. From the perusal of the details contained in the paper book, we find that the assessee had genuinely committed a mistake in mentioning the wrong figure of disallowance under partnership remuneration which was duly brought to the notice of the revenue at the time of appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, the Assessing Officer has justified the mistake on record on the ground that it is attributed to the assessee. The income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings. As to who is responsible for the mistake is not material for the purpose of proceedings under section 154; what is material is that there is a mistake- a mistake which is clear, glaring and which is incapable of two views being taken. The fact that mistake has occurred is beyond doubt. The fact that it is attributed to the error of the assessee does not obliterate the fact of mistake or legal remedies for a mistake having crept in. It is only elementary that the income liable to be taxed has to be worked out in accordance with the law as in force. In this process, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
