TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....net income of Rs. 9,62,660, computation in respect of which (PB-1, pgs.11-14), as indeed balance-sheet as on 31/3/2011 (PB-1, pgs.15-19), was, on account of e-filing, not filed along with. This is consistent with ss.139C & 139D of the Act, dispensing with the filing of documents forming part of the return of income (s.139(9)), which though are, on demand, liable to be produced before the Assessing Officer (AO). 2.2 The return was processed u/s. 143(1), and tax liability worked out Rs. 5,81,215 (i.e., at the returned income of Rs. 23,67,620) vide Intimation dated 09/5/2013, raising thus a demand for Rs. 4,34,133 (Rs. 5,81,215 - 1,47,082), i.e. the corresponding to the income differential of Rs. 14,04,960 between the income returned and that on which the tax had been worked out and returned. The assessee filed a rectification electronically on 03/12/2015, with a view to reduce this income by Rs. 14,04,960, stated to have been returned by mistake by the Chartered Accountant (CA), Shri Rohit Jain, filing the return, being the income deemed u/s. 44AD of some other person. The same, in view of system constraints, was not accepted. The tax liability of Rs. 5,81,215 (including cess at Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon"ble jurisdictional High Court, viz. Sulemanji Ganibhai v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 373 (MP); Deepnarayan Nagu & Co v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 37 (MP). The assessee also missed the bus u/s. 119(2)(b), his application thereunder having been rejected on account of being time barred (PB- 1, pgs. 43-44). Though the assessee claims that he was prevented in filing the revised return (u/s. 139(5)) in view of the receipt of Intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) after the time limit u/s. 139(5), the same is neither here nor there. This is as the Intimation correctly processes the return as furnished. If the same indeed bore any additional income by mistake, that is something which was or could only be known only to the assessee; the AO would not know of it, unless of course there was something on record to exhibit the same; none of which stands specified. The same in any case would not operate to extend the time limitation u/s. 139(5). Recourse to s. 139(5) stands thus closed for the assessee which, where so, would have pre-empted, nay, aborted the controversy that now confronts us. 4.2 The assessee, nevertheless, has made an application u/s. 154; in fact, on several occasions, as apparent from the infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could be rectified u/s. 154. In other words, the issue arising in the instant case is not whether the assessee had claimed the income per the return or not, but whether the twin conditions, i.e., of the inclusion of income in the return of income being a mistake and, two, of the same being apparent from record, which must be satisfied if the assessee"s claim for withdrawal of income of Rs. 14.05 lacs is to be rectified u/s. 154, are so or not. This, it would be noted, is also the purport of the decision in CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP), where, in the context of deduction u/s. 35B, it was held that if it is apparent from record that the assessee was entitled to relief admissible u/s. 35B, that relief can be granted to him u/s. 154 by rectifying the assessment even though the relief under that section had not been claimed by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. This, it would be noted, is also the purport of the decisions by the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue (supra). 4.5 We may next examine the assessee"s application for rectification u/s. 154 in light of the law as explained. There is nothing on record to show that the income of Rs. 14.05 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich, by law, form an integral part of the return, filing of which though, as a measure of expediency, stands waived, and which could not operate to prejudice an assessee. Such documents, where called for and furnished, would form part of the record. It is on this basis, then, that the AO in the instant case would be required to decide as to whether the mistake in the return furnished by the assessee is, or lies, as claimed by him, in disclosing mistakenly additional income (Rs. 14.05 lacs) or, as inferred by the Revenue, in computing his tax liability incorrectly, i.e., corresponding to the additional tax liability on the said additional income. That the tax amount computed agrees with the income claimed as returned incorrectly, makes it an either or situation, so that, as afore-stated, either could be correct, and the same has to be determined in the conspectus of the case. This is also the purport of the recent decision by this Bench of the Tribunal in Anand Mining Corporation v. Asst. CIT (in ITA 103 of 2018 & CO 02 of 2018, dated 21/11/2022). It would be a different matter indeed, we may hasten to add, where the assessee, though admits tax thereon, yet claims u/s. 154 of havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the two mistakes, i.e., either the figure "5" is wrongly written (instead of "4") or, correspondingly, the figure of total is wrongly written as "14" instead of "15". Surely, one of the two is correct and the other, incorrect, and which is the controversy attending the case, and which has to be necessarily resolved for a valid assessment; the figure "10" in the example representing the other income. It is, this, then, that has to be determined on the basis of the material on record, and in the conspectus of the case. Both the mistakes are possible, and it is this consideration that shall exclude one; rather, eliminate one, which the Revenue has sub-consciously and presumptuously has. 4.8 Though it may be, in view of our adjudication, not necessary to dilate upon the decisions relied upon by the assessee, we may yet for the sake of completeness of our order, do so. Each decision rests on its own facts. In Mandira D. Vakharia (supra), the assessee had already made a claim (u/ss. 80HHE & 80GG) per her return of income. The only thing required was the filing of the audit report (certificate), as required by the provision, which the Board Circular itself professed as liable to be take....