9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby the petitioner's application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for condonation of delay in filing the revised income tax return [ITR] in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2022-23, was rejected. 2. The petitioner states that it has been regularly filing its ITR for the past assessment years. It had also filed its ITR for the AY 2022-23 on 03.11.2022. However, the Central Processing Centre [CPC] rejected the ITR filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was not accompanied by the Tax Audit Report [TAR]. According to the petitioner, there is no requirement for furnishing a TAR as its turnover was less than Rs. 10.00 Crores. 3. Accordingly, on 24.12.2022 the petitioner filed the response to the communi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Payer has claimed gross receipt or Income under the head "Profits and gains of Business or Profession" more than 1 crore. however, books of account are not audited u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act Probable Resolution The complete details of Profit and loss account and Balance Sheet are to be entered in Part A and taxpayer has to e-file the audit report, specified under Section 44AB." 7. The petitioner disagreed with the resolution as suggested and communicated its reasons for the same. The same are set out below: - "Response Disagree Reason for disagreeing with the defect As per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act-1961, the limit of tax audit is Rs.10 Crores if the total amount received during the year in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion that its ITR could not be rejected on this ground. However, there is no appeal provided against the order rejecting the ITR as invalid. We do not consider it apposite to examine this question as the petitioner does not desire to pursue any contentious proceedings and seeks rectification of its return by filing the revised return. It is in the aforesaid context, the petitioner moved the application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. 11. It is apparent from the above that the entire controversy has arises on account of checking the incorrect box in the return, which has no implication on the assessment of the income of the petitioner. 12. It is also material to note that the petitioner's claim that its cash receipts are NIL and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
