TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and income from other sources to the tune of Rs,1,77,393/- and none under the head business or profession . The petitioner would state that at that juncture, they realized the mistake in keying the details and requested the second respondent to rectify the mistake committed. The petitioner submitted during the assessment proceedings that certain mistakes were committed while filling up return of income in ITR-VI and while filing e-return, which was an inadvertent mistake and the same being apparent on record can be rectified. The second respondent completed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.02.2015, on the returned income of Rs. 32,71,620/- on the ground that without a revised return under Section 139(4), total income cannot be reduced and that the powers of the Assessing Officer is limited as no alteration in the returned income could be made by him in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Goetze India vs. CIT, reported in 2006 284 ITR 323 (SC). Aggrieved by such order of assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent under Section 264 of the Act to revise the order of assessment, dated 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that as regards the averments in para No.3 of the affidavit, it is submitted that in column No.3, the petitioner mentioned income receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under the heads of income to the tune of Rs. 16,81,399/-, consequently, petitioner also admitted in column No.7 of the BP expenses debited to the profit and loss account considered under further heads of income to the tune of Rs. 24,88,967/- after allowing allowable depreciation under the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,32,944/- from the adjusted profit, the income from business or profession arrived at Rs. 17,67,595/- which was reflected in the Schedule Part B T1 (Computation of Total Income) in column No.2(iv) a Rs. 17,67,595/-. Referring to the reasons assigned in the order under Section 264 of the Act, impugned order, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner that no business income was earned, is not acceptable. It is further submitted that as per the decision in the case of M/s.Goetze India (supra), an error in a return can be rectified through a revised return only and therefore, the second respondent has no power to make assessment with respect to any figures that are variant with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court making it clear that the issue in the said case is limited to the power of the Assessing Authority and does not impinge on the power of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act. 9. In Sri Selvamuthukumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai-VI,(supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court discussed the power of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act. It was held that the power under Section 264 of the Act is, in fact as wide a power, and one that is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice. Courts have consistently taken a view that the conferment of powers under Section 264 of the Act is to enable the Commissioner to provide relief to an assessee, where the law permits the same. 10. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VIII,(supra), the question of law which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was whether the ITAT is right in rejecting the additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., unless there is a direct impediment to the said power. (ix) The Supreme Court in M/s.Goetze India (supra), had no occasion to deal with the power of the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act. 12. Bearing in mind the above legal principles, I proceed to consider the factual matrix. The petitioner during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13, submitted a representation to the second respondent on 12.12.2014, stating that the assessee's income is letting out of property and apart from that they do not have any income during the assessment year and in the income memo, the entire income in the profit and loss account has been offered under the head house property and other sources , and there is no other income. However, while filing the return, it has been inadvertently filed against business income in addition to income from house property and other sources and hence, the gross total income shown as Rs. 32,71,621/- in the income tax return as against Rs. 16,81,400/- is just a keying error and requested the second respondent to accept the figures as appearing in the income memo and complete the assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther details to support the stand that in the return forms, the business income has been keyed wrongly and requested the first respondent to exercise his revisional powers. This stand was reiterated in the written submissions made by the Chartered Account of the petitioner, dated 11.06.2015. As noted, power under Section 264 of the Act, exercisable by the Commissioner, is a wide power to provide relief to the assessee wherever law permits. It provides amble power to make or cause such enquiry to be made as he thinks fit. Materials which were not available before the Assessing Officer, though has come on record subsequently could be taken into consideration by the Commission. The first respondent considered the matter and held that the stand taken by the petitioner, does not stand the test of scrutiny and proceeded to assign reasons in support of such conclusion. It was observed that the petitioner contended that it has not earned business income for the assessment year 2012-13 and the receipts earned during the year are from letting out of 5th floor space measuring 4174 sq.ft., in Bali Towers at Saidapet, Chennai and letting out of a flat at Mumbai and if such is the case, as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner in an independent manner and assigned reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioner. 15. In the preceding paragraphs, the Court has taken note of the stand taken by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the time within which the petitioner could have filed a revised return had expired long back and the petitioner appears to have woken up after notice was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, when a personal hearing was offered, the petitioner for the first time took a stand that an inadvertent error had occurred while filing the income tax returns for the relevant year namely, 2012-13 and that error is a keying error. Such contention was raised by the petitioner stating that except the income from house property and other sources , they have no other income and there is no business income and therefore, it is a keying error. If such is the stand taken by the assessee, he is duty bound to prove that there was no other income except the income under the head house property and other sources . On a perusal of the factual position, it is clear that this was not established by the petitioner b....