9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263 by the CIT is erroneous and bad law as it is passed without laying the foundation for the assumption of jurisdiction. 2. The CIT ought to have appreciate that at the time of examination of records of the assesse order passed by the Assessing Officer was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The CIT ought to have appreciated that in the return filed by the assesse interest income was inadvertently shown as taxable which was rectified by the assessing officer. 4. The CIT ought to have appreciated that the Union of India does not require to levy tax on an amount returned by mistake. The sovereign authority does not want to take advantage of a mistake committed by an assesse. It is not the policy of the Sov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad "Income from other sources". The Land Acquisition Collector deducted the tax at source from the interest which was deposited to the account of Central Govt. In the return of filed by the assessee the interest was shown as taxable income since the issue regarding taxability of interest of compensation was not settled as on the said date. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam Dass(HUF) reported in (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) came to be passed on 16.07.2009 wherein, it has been held that the interest awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable. The assessee filed application u/s 154 requesting that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act may be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement of the High Court, then it may be considered as a mistake apparent of the record and a ground for rectification. In view of the judgements relied upon, the mistake apparent from records in this case, as discussed above in detail, is rectifiable U/s 154 of the Act. 4. On verification, the contention raised by the assessee is found to be acceptable, as interest of Rs. 2,41,16,305/- is interest awarded U/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which forms part of 'Compensation' and is, therefore, exempt U/s 10(37) of the Act. Since the 'interest income' already declared at Rs.2,41,16,305/- acquires the nomenclature of 'Compensation' consequent upon delivery of judgement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground mentioned above. 6. The ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld CIT has not appreciated that at the time of examining the records of the assessee and the order passed by the AO was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld CIT ought to have appreciate that in the return filed by the assessee interest income was inadvertently shown as taxable since the law on the said issue was not settled. Order of the ld CIT is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (supra). Further, submitted that the Circular issued by CBDT No. 68 dated 17.11.1971 states that subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected from the right person. The reason for exercising power conferred u/s 263 by the ld CIT is that the return of income had to be filed without any paper i.e. it was paperless filing of return of income, even if the assessee had attached the document along with return and same will be taken off the record. Therefore, held that the ld AO has committed an error in exercising power u/s 154 of the Act. In our opinion the income tax proceeding are not adversarial it is not material as to who committed the mistake, the fact that a mistake has been committed and the same has to be rectified. The Rajkot Bench of Tribunal in the case of Rupam Impex in ITA No. 472/RJT/2014 for AY 2008-09 held as under:- "A lot of emphasis is placed on the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayers is not an act of benevolence by the field officers but it call of duty in a socially accountable governance. If Authority is needed even for justifying this approach to the taxpayers, one need not look beyond the circulars issued by the CBDT itself." 9. The Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Bellary Educational Services Trust Vs. Deputy CIT (Exemption) in ITA No. 104/Bang/2021 has relied on the Circular No. 68 dated 17.11.1971 wherein, it is held that the interpretation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court if not followed in the order the same may constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The relevant portion of the same are as under:- "11.................................................................................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
