2015 (6) TMI 1118 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs correction of business loss mistake in electronic return for AY 2009-10

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO and the Computerized Processing Center to rectify the mistake in carrying forward the business loss in ... Rectification of mistake - mistake in filling item No.43, which was taken into account by processing the return and the income of the assessee was processed at nil in place of a loss of ₹ 20,37,162/- - Held that:- The mistake, as is claimed by the assessee to be apparent from the record would fall within sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of the Explanation as the figure of “nil” stated against column No.43 would be inconsistent with the other entries of the same or some other items in the same very return. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that assessee is not entitled to get the impugned mistake rectified. The adjustment sought for by the assessee in the rectification application would be in accordance with the provisions of section 143(1) and is an inadvertent mistake which is rectifiable under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that there is a mistake apparent from record which is required to be rectified. We direct the AO as well as Computerized Processing Center to rectify the mistake and accept the application filed by the assessee under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Issues involved:1. Rectification of mistake in carrying forward business loss in electronic return.Detailed Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-7, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant contended that a mistake had occurred while filing the electronic return, specifically in column No.43, resulting in the omission of a loss of Rs. 20,37,162 in the intimation made under section 143(1). The appellant argued that the mistake was rectified in the revised return filed subsequently, where the loss was correctly stated. Additionally, applications were submitted to rectify the mistake before the ITO and the Centralized Processing Center, but the latter rejected the application citing no prima facie error in the order. The AO did not decide on the application, leading to the rejection by the Computerized Processing Center.The Ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section 143(1) and concluded that the mistake claimed by the appellant did not fall within the scope of 'mistake' under section 154. The appellant contended that the mistake was apparent from the record, as evidenced by the correct figure stated in various sections of the return. The Ld. AR argued that relief should be granted to the appellant based on the rectifiable mistake.After considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal found that the mistake was indeed apparent from the record, falling under the provisions of section 143(1) for rectification. The Tribunal held that the adjustment sought by the appellant was in line with the Act and constituted an inadvertent mistake eligible for rectification under section 154. Consequently, the AO and the Computerized Processing Center were directed to rectify the mistake and accept the application filed by the appellant. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the rectifiability of the mistake in carrying forward the business loss in the electronic return.