TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no order which requires rectification since the appellant had filed a revised return of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act was processed based on the original return of income filed ignoring the revised return filed on the very same day since the acknowledgement for having filed the revised return was not sent to the CPC within 30 days f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.10.2013 bearing Ack. No.826815890291013 declaring NIL income and no refund was claimed. Later on, the same day the assessee filed revised return bearing Ack. No.826905000291013 and copy of acknowledgement in ITR-V was sent on 20.10.2017 after the due date. The CPC processed the original return on 12.03.2015 raising a demand of Rs. 20,38,178. The assessee filed recti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sum of Rs. 53,94,723/- in the column - income in respect of which exemption u/s 11 is not amiable by virtue of provisions of sect or 13 and a sum of Rs. 4,61,529/- is shown under the head 'income from other sources'. The assessee claims that a reused return was filed on 29.10.5013 filling the column property the same is not authenticated by the assessee. Therefore, the return has been processed as per the income declared in the return and accordingly the tax has been correctly computed. Hence, the request made the assessee for rectification for allowing exemption. It cannot be considered as there is no mistake apparent on record." 5.2 As per the A.O. not claiming exemption u/s 11 is not mistake apparent from record on the other h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich included interest income of Rs. 4,61,528. This sum is filled up in the return of income at Sl.No.1[F][1] of Schedule- OS. The balance sum of Rs. 53,94,723 was erroneously filled up at Sl.No.7 of Part B-TI of the return, which required the appellant to state the income in respect of which exemption u/s. 11 of the Act was not available. Apart from the aforesaid mistake, the appellant also erred in reporting the income applied for charitable purposes. The total revenue expenditure for the year is Rs. 85,36,706 and instead of reporting this sum as application of income, the same was reported as "Income claimed as exempt u/s. 10. Due to these errors, the total income was calculated at Rs. 0 in the return. However, on the same day the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore the AO was not justified in refusing to rectify the mistake apparent on record. 7. The ld. AR further submitted that assessee is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act dated 27.6.2008 (copy placed at page 52 of PB. And Form 10B (page 53-54 of PB). In view of this, there is only a mistake committed by the assessee in putting the figures in wrong column in the return. She also relied on the CBDT Circular No.14 [XL 35] of 1955 dated 11.4.1995 (page 48 of PB) wherein there is a clear instruction that the Officers of the department must not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee and that it is their duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way to claim and secure reliefs due to them. Accordingly, she requested that the m....