TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the demand raised against assessee is not valid as intimation u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act 1961 was not served on assessee. 3. It is therefore prayed that the action of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in confirming the action of assessing officer in rejecting rectification application filed by assessee may kindly be deleted." 3. This assessee is assessed as an individual. She filed return on 09-09-2008 stating income of Rs. 1,38,792/- thereby claiming refund of Rs. 6,647/-. This case file does not reveal any evidence of processing thereof u/s. 143(1) of the Act followed by any intimation. The ACIT thereafter issued a demand notice dated 16-07-2012 involving a sum of Rs. 14,37,190/-. The assessee moved the impugned section 154 rectification petition dated 10-10-2013 reading as under:- "RE: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT With reference to the above assessment year, I have to draw your attention to the following mistakes which are apparent from records. Kindly, rectify the same U/s.154 of the l.T. Act. Sir, I have already made application for rectification u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act on 08/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. All this resulted in rejection of assessee's rectification. 5. The CIT(A) upholds Assessing Officer's action as follows:- "6.1.1 I have considered the rectification order as well as the submissions of the appellant. The Grounds of appeal- Ground No. 1 pertains to rejecting appellant's application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961 & thereby erred in not issuing refund of Rs. 6,647/- claimed in the return of income. On the perusal of the details, it is observed that the appellant had filed his ROI for the AY 2008-09 vide acknowledgement no. 92004226 on 09.09.2008 showing amount of purchase at Rs. 3,33,426/-. The appellant had filed his return of income in ITR- 4 wherein in Part A - P&L at S. No. 6 the 'purchases' have been shown at 3,33,426/- and the 'profit' at S. No. 43 has been shown at Rs. 34,87,179/-. The appellant has claimed that due to typographical error the figure of purchase of Rs. 35,33,426/- was typed as 3,33,426/- and some expenses under the head 'beam pasramni' of Rs. 29,810/-, 'warping expenses' of Rs. 57,365/- and 'yarn processing expenses' of Rs. 35,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the [Commissioner (Appeals)], by the..............................." 6.1.3 The plain reading of the provisions clearly lays down that any mistake "apparent from the record' can be rectified. This means the mistake should be verifiable from the records. This fact has now become a settled principal it the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported vide 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetze(India) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income tax. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Volkart Brothers Case (SC) 82 ITR SO/ held that the mistake was be obvious and patent- not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions- A decisions on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 6.1.4 Similar view has been expressed by the various courts in the following judgments:- (i) 228 ITR 463 (SC) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (ii) 227 ITR 843 (Delhi) Motor General Finance Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainly mean that he has filed a revised return. Such a petition is not recognized under the Income-tax Act. The basis of assessment is the return filed by the assessee. If a revised return is filed under section 139(5) the assessment can be completed only on the basis of revised return and not otherwise. In absence of the revised return as provided under section 139(5), the Assessing Officer is bound to make assessment on the basis of original return. There is no provision under the income-tax Act to enable an assessee to revise his income by way of filing a reVised statement of income as has been done by the appellant. In the instant case, a revised statement of income was filed before the Assessing Officer by the appellant. If such revised statement of income is accepted, then the very purpose of enacting section 139(5) for filing revised return shall be frustrated and provision of said section becomes redundant. 6.2.3 The Assessing Officer has no power to entertain fresh claim made by the assessee after filing of the original return other than by filing of revised return. Law is well settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing mus....