TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on the letter of 18.03.2008, the petitioner decided to seek for condonation of delay to file a revised return by an application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. If an order had been passed as regards the rectification application, the assessee may have got relief at that end itself. As no order was passed, the assessee then decided to explore the possibility of filing a revised return. Unfortunately, the assessee s application u/s 119(2)(b) has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of 6 years, while observing that the Circular 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 does not permit condoning the delay beyond 6 years. Letter that could be construed to be a rectification application is not decided, noticing the merits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank s Optional Early Retirement Scheme and was paid superannuation benefit of ₹ 5,00,000/-. The certificate reflecting benefit made out to the petitioner as per the scheme is enclosed at Annexure-A. 3. Petitioner submits that return of income for the assessment year 2004-2005 was filed and in the return filed, petitioner did not claim the benefit of exemption as was available under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). The respondent issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return filed by the petitioner. The assessment order came to be passed, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-D which reads follows: The assessee filed return of income on 02.05.2005 declaring total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed the present writ petition and has challenged the validity of the order passed. It is further contended that the letter dated 18.03.2008 which was filed, in effect, is an application for rectification and could have been considered by the Assessing Officer while pointing out that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has clearly opined that the exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act could not be granted as no exemption was claimed. It is submitted that such observation in the assessment order could be construed to be an error apparent insofar as the Assessing Officer has declined the exemption that could have been availed of on the sole ground that exemption under Section 10(10C) was not available. 8. Reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment submits that the case under Section 154 is not made out and the question of processing the revised return requires hurdle of limitation to be crossed. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the letter dated 18.03.2008 is concerned, prima facie the same does have the ingredients of rectification application. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The fact that the assessment order observes regarding exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, which indicates that the Assessing Officer was aware of non-claiming of the exemption. If the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L. HIRDAY (Supra) and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of RAMCO CEMENT (Supra) are taken note of, prima facie an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this circular is not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of this circular is merely to emphasise that we should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him. emphasis supplied 17. Keeping in mind the above and the peculiar facts of the case, including that letter that could be construed to be a rectification application is not decided, noticing the merits of the claim for exemption, a fit case is made out for consideration of the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
