TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the Ld. DR who had not raised any specific objection, the delay on account of COVID-19 pandemic is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,28,30,090/- which was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) by accepting the returned income. Subsequently the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 dt. 08/05/2019 before the AO. In its application, the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide its submission sent through e-mail on 10/12/2018 submitted that while filing its return of income for the impugned assessment year i.e; A.Y. 2016-17, on account of oversight, the opening balance of WDV of fixed asset as on 01/04/2015 was wrongly taken as per the Companies Act as against Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the correct WDV required to be taken as per the Income Tax Act is Rs. 2,70,39,004/- instead of Rs. 2,20,00,290/-. Accordingly, the depreciation for the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to the impugned A.Y. 2016-17 comes to Rs. 48,88,526/- instead o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nies Act instead of Income Tax Act. The correct WDV required to be taken as per Income Tax Act as on 01.04.2015 is Rs.27039004/ instead of Rs.22000290/-. Accordingly, depreciation for F.Y 2015-16 comes to Rs.4888526/- instead of Rs.4144887/- as wrongly considered by the assessee company while filing the ITR for the A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Ld. A.O has not given effect to this bonafide error of taking wrong WDV in the computation of income while computing the business income. Further, we wish to bring to your kind attention that after giving effect of enhanced depreciation of Rs.4888526/-, Income Tax refund for A.Y 2016-17 comes to Rs.319583/- instead of Rs.73710/-. We wish to submit following documents for your kind perusal: (a) Copy of assessment order for the A.Y 2016-17 dated 11.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith computation sheet. (b) Copy of depreciation chart for the A.Y 2016-17 as per Income Tax Act, 1961 showing correct opening balance of WDV of fixed assets as at 01.U4.2015 at Rs.27039004/-. You will observe from the depreciation chart that correct depreciation as per Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2016-17 comes to Rs. 4888526/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be levied on an assessee at a higher amount or at a higher rate merely because the assessee, under a mistaken belief or due to an error, offered the income for taxation at that amount or that rate. It can only be levied when it is authorised by the law, as is the mandate of Art.265 of the Constitution of India. A sense of fair play by the /fe7d officers towards the taxpayers is not an act of benevolence by the field officers but it is call of duty in a socially accountable governance. In this respect, the reliance is placed on the following judgments: (a) Dattatraya Gopal Bhotte vs. CIT[1984] 150 ITR 460 In this case, it was held that,"Officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a tax payer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department, for it would inspire confidence in him that he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment the rectification petition for allowing enhanced claim of depreciation and thereby reducing the returned income and increasing claim of refund has been filed. 5.4 On going through section 154 alongwith the judgement of the Apex Court in the case referred above [Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006)] vis-a-vis the appellant's case, I find no infirmity in the AO's order by rejecting the rectification petition. The order of the AO is upheld." 7. Against the said findings and directions of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The ld DR is heard and material available on record purused. Firstly, regarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze(India) Ltd. which has been relied by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, we find that the said decision is in the context of the power of the AO to admit any fresh claim during the course of assessment proceedings other than by way of filing a revised return of income. However the same does not restrict the power of the Appellate Authority in considering the claim so filed by the assessee and adjudicating the same based on facts and circumstances of the respective case. 9. In the present case, we find ....