TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in approving the action of the assessing officer who chose to rectify the alleged mistake, under Section 154 of an issue which is debatable in nature? (ii) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of setoff of loss to the appellant when the return for the year under dispute was in time? (iii) When the loss of immediately preceding year was undisturbed, whether the authorities were justified in disturbing the same, for the year under challenge? (iv) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in denying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) - V, Bangalore, inter alia contending that there was a delay of one day in filing the return for the assessment year 2004-05, as the due date for filing of the return which happened to be a Sunday and the next day being Kannada Rajyosthsava Day, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it was a Government Holiday. CIT (Appeals) called for report of the Assessing Officer. Further, the CIT (Appeals) observed that it was CBDT which has powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to authorize any income tax authority to admit an application or claim of any exemption, deduction, after the expiry of the period prescribed by or under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 154 could be invoked only when a mistake apparent on the record is obvious and patent mistake which can be established sans adjudicating on the points. At most, it was a case for reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed in accordance with provision of sub-section (3) of section 139. Sub-section (3) of Section 139 of the Act contemplates that loss of return has to be filed within the time allowed under sub-Section (1), accordingly t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under subsection (1)." 10. Section 139(1) of the Act reads thus: "139. Return of income.- (1) Every person,- (a) being a company or a firm; or (b) being a person other than a company or a firm], if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor or the collector of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee or the deductor or the collector a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 12. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, supra, a mistake apparent on the face on the record when it is taken as obvious or self-evident, power under section 154 of the Act could be invoked. If the alleged mistakes require investigation into facts or determination of law or two opinions are possible on the issue, then it could not be construed as the mistake apparent on record which could be rectified under Section 154. 13. Admittedly, the return for the relevant assessment year herein was filed on 02.11.2004 instead of 31.10.2004. As per Section 139(....