TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint B to Part A-GEN of the Return meant to disclose date of approval/ registrations etc, to claim of benefit of exemption u/s 10 read with 12A of the Act. It seems that mistakenly NO was mentioned by the assessee and relevant information about registration etc. was shown as NO . In Part B of the return under the head statement of income for the period ended on 31/3/2013 income from other sources is shown and in deductions at relevant places amount applied for charitable/ religious places and amount accumulated or set apart have been disclosed, with total deduction claim shown. At the same time in computation of income, which was part of the Return, as available at Page no 34 of PB, Amount applied to charitable purposes, amount deemed to be applied and accumulated amount has been shown at Rs 3,74,58,598/- and accordingly Gross Total Income is shown as NIL. The matter of fact is that the CPC while considering the return of the assessee had issued an notice dated 13.08.2019 for payment of outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2013-14 in which it was mentioned that there was an outstanding demand. At the same time it was mentioned that if the assessee does not agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.08.2019 of Ld. CIT(A)-40, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority) arising out of an appeal before it against the assessment order dated 04.02.2019 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) by the AO, ITO (Exemption), Ward-1(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Facts of the case is that the return of income' was filed on 31/10/2013. While processing the return under section 143(1), the CPC Bangalore did not allow the amount of Rs. 3,18,39,808/- claimed on account of amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of the Explanation to section 11(1). Further, an amount of Rs. 56,18,790/- claimed as amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purposes to the extent as is not exceed 15% of income derived from property held under trust under section 11(1)(a) was also not allowed as deduction. An application under section 154 was filed which was rejected. While rejecting the application under section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to have been Applied for charitable purpose Rs 39,36,293 c) Amount Accumulate or set apart Rs 56,18,790 3. That on the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the holding that the Appellant has not claimed the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding interest charged Rs 26,77,488 u/s 234B and Rs 4,12,780 u/s 234C. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the only issue in this case is the disallowance of Rs. 3,74,58,598/- claimed by the assessee under section 11, confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee is a government Board registered under section 12A of the income tax Act. All along it had been filing its return of income claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act for the last many years and also later years. The exemption has been granted to it in various years. Referring to the paper book filed it was submitted that during the year under consideration while filing its return of income, (PB Pg. 21-33), inadvertently the particulars with regard to claim of benefit of registration u/s 12AA under the Act, in point B to Part A-GEN (PB Pg. 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied CBDT Circular no 14(XL-35) dt. 11.04.1955 placed in PB Pg. 344-345, to submit that CBDT has directed officers of the department to give benefit to the assessee for which he is clearly entitled but omitted to have claimed. 9. Reliance is further placed on following case laws whereas per Ld. AR such technicalities have been ignored to give benefit to the assessee: 1. Anchor Pressing Private Limited (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) 2. TS Balaram Vs. Volkart (1971) 182 ITR 50 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del) 4. Sh. Koshti Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj) 5. Dhanesh Kumar Jain ITA 4657/Del/2018, dt. 10.12.2021 6. IECS Ltd. ITA 8503/Del/2019, dt. 08.09.2022 7. Jai Devi Ram Padia ITA 323/Del/2021, dt. 25.02,2022 10. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of Ld. Tax authorities below. It was submitted that in Return as filed exemption was not claimed so same could not be allowed by way of rectification. 11. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and submission it will be necessary to understand as to what is the scope of rectification of Mistakes under Section 154 of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Income-tax Officer had committed a mistake in omitting to grant relief under s. 84. 14. It was further held in the facts of that case that,; Although the jurisdiction under s 154 to rectify any mistake apparent from the record is wider than that provided under r. 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record, nonetheless there must be material to support the claim to relief under s. 84, and unless such material can be referred to, no grievance can be made if the Income-tax Officer refuses to rectify the assessment and refuses relief under s. 84. 15. As with regard to what is record which is subject of rectification powers, Hon ble Bombay High Court in Gammon India Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1995 214 ITR 50 Bom has observed; The expression record has not been defined in the Act. It has, therefore, to be construed and understood in the context in which it appears. Section 154 empowers the income-tax authorities to rectify mistakes which are apparent from the record , Record in such a case would mean record of the case comprising the entire proceedings including documents and materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter on record is considered it appears that in the case in hand the Ld. AO and also the Ld CIT(A) were both of view that as revised return is not filed the claim of exemption /s 10 read with section 12A cannot be sustained. A distinction needs to be made here between a revised return which is filed, before the Department completes assessment. A rectification, on the other hand, can be filed only after assessee receives an intimation Section 143(1) or assessment order is passed and intimated to the assessee. So rectification application is more appropriate a remedy when assessment is complete and assessee claims on the basis of the assessment record available with the Ld. AO, that there is a mistake apparent in the order arising from the assessment record and same be rectified. 18. What is important here in the case in hand is that the mistake was in the Part A of the return which calls for personal information of the assessee. Assessee was supposed to submit YES in the column in point B to Part A-GEN of the Return (page 22 of PB), meant to disclose date of approval/ registrations etc, to claim of benefit of exemption u/s 10 read with 12A of the Act. It seems that mistakenly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport the claim of relief u/s 11 of the Act. It is not the case where the record in the form of Computation, being part of Return, did not contain any material to show there was claim of exemption. Thus acutully it cannot be said that a new or fresh claim was being raised without revising the return. 24. Even the intimation issued calling for payment of demand and it s annexure A, as discussed, above establish that the nature of mistake was such that it could have been rectified u/s 154 of the Act itself. 25. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of the bench that the ld Tax Authorities below have fallen in error in not taking into consideration the rectification application. The nature of mistake, as discussed, is one which falls into the definition of mistake apparent from the record and was liable to corrected without any requirement of a revised return. 26. Consequently, the ground No. 1 deserves to be allowed. The matter requires to be restored to the files of the ld AO to consider the rectification application of the assessee and consider the claim of exemption of assessee u/s 11 of the Act as per the information available on record or to be further verified from reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
