TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Application dated 26.02.2020 filed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 vide Impugned Order dated 27.02.2020. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Order passed by the Ld. A.O. CPC Bangalore for rejecting the request for rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the appellant, without giving any valid reasons for rejection, therefore the impugned order is invalid and liable to be quashed and application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be allowed. 3. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Order passed by the Ld. A.O. CPC Bangalore for rejecting the request for rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the appellant vide Order dated 27.02.2020 in respect of claim of deduction under section 50IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. amounting to Rs.10,02,905/- under chapter VI-A, therefore, without giving any valid reasons for rejection, therefore the impugned order is invalid and liable to be quashed and application under section 154 of the income Tax Act, 1961 is liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D Vakharia decided similar issue in favour of assessee and copy of which was referred to be placed in P.B. pgs. 104 to 106. Therefore in view of these facts and circumstances, it was submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee may be allowed. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below and invited our attention to the findings of ld. CIT(A), wherein he has categorically held that since the copy of audit report was not available when the CPC passed order u/s. 143(1), therefore, it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from record and hence ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. I find that it is undisputed fact that the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB has not been allowed by the authorities below only because of the reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with return of income and was only filed after receipt of intimation u/s. 143(1) and therefore the assessee filed rectification applications u/s. 154 of the Act after uploading Form-1CCB which was rejected by CPC. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red under sections 12A(b), 33AB(2), 35E(6), 43B (first proviso), 54(2), 54B(2), 54D(2), 54F(4), 54G(2), 80HH(5), 80HHA(4), 80HHB(3), 80HHD(6), 80HHE(4), 80-I(7), 80-IA(8) and the like. But if the evidence is subsequently furnished, rectification under section 154 should be carried out to the extent permitted the by Board's Circular No. 669, dated October 25, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105). No prima facie disallowance shall, however, be made if any evidence, required to be filed along with the return of income only in pursuance of the non-statutory guidance notes for filing in the return of income, is not so filed. (c) A claim for deduction or rebate of any amount which exceed statutory limit imposed, if such limit is expressed either as a specific mandatory amount or as a percentage, ratio or a fraction, and if the information relevant to application of the statutory limits appear in the return or the accompanying accounts or documents. Example (i) If under section 24(1)(i) the deduction in respect of repairs and collection charges is claimed in excess of 1/5th of the annual value (applicable with effect from assessment year 1993-94), such excess can be disallowed as a pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed. This circular seeks to explain the ambit and scope of adjustments required to be made under the aforesaid provision. 4. At the outset, it has to be noted that by virtue of para 2 of the Income-tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1989 GSR 376(E), dated March 23, 1989 made by the Central Government the substituted section 143 shall apply only in relation to the assessment year 1989-90 and subsequent years. Hence, the adjustments which were not permissible under the section as it stood prior to its substituted section, cannot be made in the returns relating to the assessment year 1988- 89 and earlier assessment years irrespective of whether such returns are filed before 1st April, 1989 or on or after the said date. 5. It is also to be noted that the procedure outlined in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 is applicable only in cases where any tax or interest or any refund is found due on the basis of the return after making the adjustments specified in the proviso to the aforesaid clause. Hence, in cases where no tax or interest or refund is found due on the basis of the loss declared in the return the case will....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or relief which on the face of it is not admissible. In other words the error, in either case, should be patent obvious or apparent. In fact for determining whether there is a prima facie error for purpose of making an adjustment under the aforesaid proviso it will be correct and proper to apply the same test as has been laid down by the Supreme Court for purposes of rectification of mistakes under section 154 of the Act. According to the Supreme Court a mis take can be rectified under section 154 of the Act only if it is an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions vide T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). 9. In the context of the legal position as outlined above, it follows that it will not be permissible for the Assessing Officer to disallow a claim for deduction allowance or relief in cases where the claim is made on the basis of the decision of any High Court, Appellate Tribunal or other appellate authority even though a contrary view in the matter may have been expressed by another High Court or another Bench of the Tribunal or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the prescribed form) had not been enclosed with the return of income. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. With the rectification application, she attached the certificate in proof of the claim made by her under sections 80HHE and 8OGG. The assessing authority declined to rectify its earlier order on the ground that the assessee was required to file the proof or certificate in support of the deduction claimed under sections 80HHE and 80GG al the time of filing of the return and the proof or certificate filed by her with a rectification application could not be taken into consideration. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was accepted and held that non-filing of the proof of certificate from the chartered accountant with the original return was not fatal to the claim made by the assessee. That the proof could be furnished later on with the rectification application. The assessing authority should have taken into consideration the proof furnished by the assessee with the rectification application while considering the claim of the assessee for dedu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 154 should be carried out to the extent permitted by Board's Circular No. 669. dated 25th October, 1993. No prima facie disallowance shall, however, be made if any evidence, required to be tiled along with the return of income only in pursuance of the non-statutory guidance notes for filing in the return of income, is not so filed." [Emphasis supplied] 8. By the Board's circular, it has been made clear that if audit report specified under section 80HHC(4) is not furnished with the return, then the deduction may be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment, But, if evidence is subsequently furnished, rectification under section 154 should be carried out to the extent permitted by the Board's Circular No. 669 dated 25-10- 1993. The circular then proceeds to mention some other provisions in regard to the non-filing of the audit report or other evidence along with the return of income as required under various sections such as 12A(fc), 33AB(2), 35E(2), 35E(6), 43B (First proviso), 80-1(7), SO-IA(R) and the like. The case of the revenue is that since sections 80I1HF, and SOGG are not specifically mentioned in the Board's circular, the assessee would not be entitled t....