TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that no interf erence is necessary in order of AO and dismissing the grounds of appeal f iled by the assessee without considering on merit. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the mistake is a mistake apparent f rom record which is rectif iable as per law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the interest of natural justice." Ground Nos. 1 & 5 are general in nature. 2. Briefly stated, Assessee company is engaged in the business of Software and IT enabled services. It electronically filed its return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,430/-, while business profits of Rs. 14,37,394/- was claimed as exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ongly entered the amounts in different columns which resulted in the deduction being denied. It was submitted that Assessee's business profits are eligible for u/s 10A of the IT Act and the same was correctly mentioned in the return also and subsequently, Assessee filed a revised return on the advice of Add. CIT in writing and referred to the impugned order of the A.O, wherein in para 3 reference from Add.CIT-16, Hyderabad dated 08-02-2013 was stated by A.O, while rejecting the petition. It was submitted that it was a mistake which can be corrected and relied on the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Jigna Dharmendra Upadhyaya Vs ITO CPC Bangalore/ ITO 22(1)(2), Mumbai in ITA No 227/Mum/2014. It was further submitted that the facts ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the CPC, Bengaluru. Assessee having received the intimation could have filed a correct revised return. Instead it filed a petition u/s 154 of the IT Act to the CPC, Bengaluru which was rejected. Further on the advice of the Dy. CIT, Assessee has filed revised return but it is not in record whether Assessee has sought any condonation as directed by the Addl. CIT under 119(2) of the IT Act. However, the fact is that Assessee filed another petition before A.O, bringing it to notice that mistake in uploading the Form and correction thereof. The A.O rejected the same. 6. On similar facts, the coordinate Bench at Mumbai in a case of mistake in uploading the Return Form has considered the powers of the A.O u/s 154 of the IT Act and 143(1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to, the assessee under clause (c) and where not adjustment has been made under clause (a)" The mistake, as is claimed by the assessee to be apparent from the record would f all within sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of the Explanation as the f igure 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. Theref ore, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that assessee is not entitled to gen the impugned mistake rectif ied. The adjustment sought f or by the assessee in the rectif ication application would be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 143(1) and is an inadvertent mistake which is rectif iable under the provision of sec. 154 of the Act. Accordingly,....