TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payments, they filed separate petitions under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking rectification of the mistake on account of the said omission. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification petitions on 06.06.2007 by separate orders on the ground that the mistake is not apparent from the record as it involves debatable point of law. Aggrieved by the separate orders dated 06.06.2007 passed by the Assessing Officer, the Appellant/Assessee preferred the statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai in ITA.No.194/10-11 & ITA.No.193/10-11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai confirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeals on 28.11.2011 by separate orders on the ground that merely by relying on figures given in financial statements, one cannot arrive at the amount allowable under Section 43B especially when the quantum of principal and interest waived in one time settlement is not apparent from record. Aggrieved by the separate orders dated 28.11.2011 for the respective assessment years, the Appellant/Assessee preferred separate Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears 2003-04 & 2004-05. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant since the mistake committed by the Appellant/Assessee is apparent from the record namely the ledger extract, an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable. According to him, the authorities below have erroneously rejected the applications under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act filed by the Appellant/Assessee. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities: (a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd., reported in (2012) 252 CTR 0151(Bombay High Court) (b) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank reported in (2010) 329 ITR 0591 (c) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC) 7. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee would submit that since the mistakes committed by the Appellant/Assessee in their returns filed for the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 is not deliberate and is apparent from the record, the authorities below have erroneously rejected the applications filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act which deals with revision of Assessment and enables an Assessee to seek revision of Assessment in case of any omission or mistake committed under the original return filed for an Assessment Year. The ledger extract filed by the Appellant/Assessee along with the applications under Section 154 of the Income Tax 1961 seeking rectification of mistake is a self serving statement of account. Though, the payment of interest is disclosed in the statement submitted by the Appellant/Assessee, the same has not been admitted by the respondent/Revenue. Whether interest payments claimed by the Appellant/Assessee is allowable or not is a matter for investigation and there is no element of mistake apparent from the record. 12. Under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, an assessee can file a revised return before the completion of Assessment or within one year from the end of the respective assessment year whichever is earlier. In the case on hand, admittedly assessments have been completed based on the original returns filed for the respective assessment years by the Appellant/Assessee and no revised returns have been filed to rectify the omission to cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be attributed to the Judge himself. He may say something or omit to say something which he did not intend to say or omit. This 'is described as a slip or omission in the judgment itself. The cause for such a slip or omission may be the Judge's inadvertence or the, advocate's mistake. But, however wide the said expressions are construed, they cannot countenance a reargument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance." 14. The case on hand does not fall within the above referred parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for rectification of mistake as the mistake alleged by the Appellant/assessee company is not apparent on the face of the record. Further, the assessments for the respective assessment years having been completed and the Appellant/assesse company having not filed any revised returns to rectify the mistakes committed in the original returns for the respective assessment years, they cannot fall back on section 154 of the Income Tax Act as the said section is meant only to rectify mistakes which is apparent on the face of the record. The case on hand does not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase where facts are not in dispute then the said mistake being one apparent on the face of the record will have to be rectified under section 154." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax U.P. and other reported in 1986 3 SCC 439 has also held that omission of relief while making assessment would not amount to "mistake apparent from record" within the meaning section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In that decision, the Assessee claimed relief under section 84 of the Income Tax Act which was rejected by the assessing officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application filed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act to rectify the alleged mistake is not maintainable as the omission of the relief while making assessment would not amount to "mistake apparent from record". 16. In the case on hand, the claim for interest deductions under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which was omitted by the Appellant/assessee company while filing the original returns can be adjudicated by the assessing officer only through a process of investigation. Even as seen from the computation of income filed along with the rectific....