TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act even if it was offered by the assessee in its return of income. As rightly pointed out by Ld. A.R., there is no estoppel against law and, in our view, the income erroneously offered in the return of income would constitute mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years under consideration and restore them to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee raised in the petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act in accordance with the law. In respect of AY 2010-11, the assessee has filed revised return of income and if the said revised return of income is processed, then the issue would get settled. The AO may take appropriate action which suits him. Appeal of assessee allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the years. However, while processing return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the deduction u/s Chapter VIA was restricted to ₹ 1.00 lakh and accordingly tax demand of ₹ 1,71,055/- and ₹ 2,66,342/- was raised for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee, however, filed revised return of income for AY 2010-11 within the time limit available u/s 139(5) of the Act omitting the salary income as well as deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. However, till date, the revised return of income has not been processed. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee also filed rectification petitions u/s 154 of the Act for both the years and it was not disposed of by CPC. Subsequently, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id salary income is not taxable in India. Hence, salary earned outside india has been offered wrongly in the return of income and the same is a mistake apparent from record. Hence the AO should have rectified the same u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the A.O. with a direction to rectify the mistake. 7. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. supported the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 8. Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made by the Ld. A.R. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is a non-resident. It is the submission of the assessee that the salary income was earned by him abroad and hence the same is not liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. It is in the circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning the delay. The question regarding the correctness of the Tribunal s holding that the delay is not to be condoned is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue . According to the ratio of the above said decision, if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, then refusing to condone the delay is an error. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years under consideration and restore them to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee raised in the petitions filed u/s 154 of the Act in accordance with the law. In respect of AY 2010-11, the assessee has filed revised return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
