2016 (2) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals wherein it is stated that the return for AY 2007-08 filed by the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1). The assessee, however, inadvertently failed to claim deduction u/s. 80P in the return of income. Accordingly application u/s. 154 was filed before the AO claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which was rejected by the AO on the ground that the claim was not made in the original return. 4. The assessee further preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) against the order of the AO rejecting the assessee's application u/s. 154. The CIT(A) relying on the decisions of Kerala Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. CIT, 170 ITR 455 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etition for condonation for delay. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471; Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in ISRO Satellite Centre in ITA No.532/208 and the decision of the Tribunal in Savayava Krushi Parivara Krishinivasa in ITA No.1055(BNG)2013 dated 4.4.2014, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and appeal admitted for adjudication. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. This Tribunal dealt with an identical issue in the case of Savayava Krushi Parivara Krishinivasa in ITA No.1055(BNG)2013 dated 4.4.2014, wherein the assessee was under a bonafide belief that appeal against denial of registration u/s. 12AA by the CIT has to be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el Trib 372 and Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CTO (1974) 33 STC 180 (Madras) wherein it was held that any beneficial legislation applicable to the assessee can be considered under section 154, though not done under the original return. He further contended that the CIT(A) had decided on the issue of eligibility u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) based on case laws which are against the assessee, without considering those decisions in favour of the assessee. He stated that the CIT(A) erred in stating that it is a debatable issue and cannot be rectified u/s. 154. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on two decisions viz., Pawan Kumar Aggrawal v. ACIT, 50 taxmann.com 489 (Delhi Trib.) and Agra Bench of the Tribunal's decision in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i). The return was processed and accepted. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO rejected the assessee's claim by order u/s. 154. On appeal, the CIT(A) on the point of rectification, observed that the tax base software had been recently developed and usage of the same required lot of expertise and any small clerical mistake in the data entry would result into incorrect filing of e-return. Further, the CIT(A) observed that as the software was recently developed, there were bound to be some technical errors in programming of the same and though the deduction was not allowed in the e-return filed resulting into tax demand, in the acknowledgment of e-return generated by the softwar....