9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). 2. Ld. AR for assessee explained the factual background leading to this appeal at length with the support of documents submitted at the time of filing of present appeal and further submitted in Paper-Book. We would like to mention the crux of relevant facts. The assessee is a society claimed to be entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). For the relevant AY 2015-16, its gross-receipts, expenses and net surplus were Rs. 5,00,475/-, Rs. 4,19,203/- and Rs. 81,272/- respectively. The assessee e-filed its return of income u/s 139(4) on 08.02.2016 vide Acknowledgement No. 947641310080216 declaring a total income of Rs. 81,272/- [This return shall hereafter be referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 475/- itself as total income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification-application u/s 154 on 05.03.2022. But, however, the AO rejected assessee's application vide order dated 29.04.2022. Aggrieved by such order of AO rejecting assessee's application u/s 154, the assessee approached CIT(A) by way of first-appeal and made submission. But the CIT(A) also dismissed assessee's appeal and did not grant any relief. Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeal. 3. Having submitted thus, Ld. AR explained that the 1st return filed by assessee on 08.02.2016 was clearly invalid since the ITR-V was not filed within 120 days. Therefore, the assessee was required to file return afresh which assessee filed on 04.03.2017. Thus, the 1st return ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2017. Since the CPC has not done so, Ld. AR prayed the Bench to direct the CPC to process the 2nd return filed by assessee. 5. Ld. AR, however, submitted that the assessee has made two errors while filling details in 2nd return. These errors are as under: (i) The first error is such that the assessee developed a genuine understanding, though it was a mis-understanding, that the 2nd return must be filed as a "revised return", therefore the assessee selected "revised return u/s 139(5)" option while filing return. However, the correct position would be that since the 1st return became invalid, the 2nd return would not be a "revised return", it would be an original return, of course a belated return u/s 139(4). Ld. AR carried us to the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made mandatory for assessees claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiia) and therefore this mistake has occurred. Ld. AR submitted that aforesaid errors have occurred because of genuine/inadvertent mistakes. But the fact is that the assessee has filed original return u/s 139(4) and the assessee is also eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the benefit of exemption to which the assessee is entitled, should not be denied for these errors and necessary direction be given to the AO in this regard. 6. Ld. DR for revenue could not point out any deficiency in the factual submissions made by Ld. AR. He was fair enough in leaving the matter for adjudication as per judicious wisdom of Bench. 7. We have considered submissions of both si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
