TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the learned CIT(A)-3 Rajkot has grievously erred in confirming the assessment of the returned loss of Rs.-22699/- at a taxable income of Rs. 1,38,279/- whilst processing us 143(1) of the Act. 2. That the learned CIT(A)-3 Rajkot has erred in not allowing claim of interest and remuneration paid to partners amounting to Rs.1,60,978/- which was to be allowed u/s 44AD(2) read with section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the learned CIT(A)-3 has grievously erred in confirming that the adjustment so done confirmed by the CPC is beyond the jurisdiction vested us 143(1) of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves for leave to add, amend and or modify the grounds of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to maintain the books of accounts since the return was filed under section 44AD of the Act, however in the return form the assessee had made inadvertently stated "yes" in the option asking whether the books of accounts are required to be maintained or not by the assessee. As a followup step, the assessee was required to enter the details of the profit and loss account and balance sheet in the return of income. However, the contention of the assessee is that since the notice under section 139(9) of the Act was not served on the assessee within time, he was unable to revise / rectify the mistake committed by it in the return of income within the due permissible time. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the assessee has acknowledged that notice u/s 139(9) was received by 23/02/2017 and it is also uncontroverted that the processing had taken place on 27/03/2017. That means the assessee could very well have removed the defect between 23/02/2017 and 27/03/2017. However, the assessee did not utilizes this opportunity to remove the defect and as such there is no fault on part of CPC in the impugned intimation. Therefore no interference can be made in the said intimation. In my considered view, the proper course of action for assessee would be to file rectification application u/s 154 before the Assessing Officer. The present appeal is therefore dismissed." 5. Before us, couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 44AD of the Act or that the interest and remuneration paid to partners did not find support from the terms of the partnership deed, however, the Ld. DR has suggested that the assessee is open to pursuing alternate remedy under section 154 of the Act. We also note that the DR has not challenged the fact that notice under section 139(9) of the Act had not been served upon the assessee within the due time. In the case of Kongu Educational Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) in ITA No.113/Chny/2022, the assessee was denied deduction u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act in an intimation issued by CPC, Bengaluru on 30-03-2018. The reason for denial of deduction was that the assessee has filed return of income under wrong provisions. The ITAT allowed the....