2024 (6) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....020-21. 2. The registry has noted delay of 1 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons deposed at para 2 of affidavit given by Director of assessee company, we find it sufficient cause hence condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed its return of income on 18.12.2020 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,10,910/-. The return of income was processed on 26.12.2021 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' in short). The CPC Bengaluru determined the total income at Rs. 1,18,30,990/- and made following disallowances: A) Disallowance of expense u/s 37 of the Act for Rs. 90,240/- B) Disallowance of Gratuity u/s 43B of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rocess the return of income as per the particulars furnished in the return of income. The appellant has reported the said amount under the incorrect head; therefore AO CPC has made the addition of the said amount to the total income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be mentioned that if any incorrect particulars have been reported in the return of income, the only recourse available is, filing the revised return of income. There is no such provision in the Income Tax Act which allows to revise the particulars of income without filing a revised return of income. On perusal of CPC 2.0, it is seen that the appellant has not filed any revised return of income. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant during the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h deduction was find mentioned in wrong classification in ITR as the discussed supra. Deductions based on the genuine claim of the assessee cannot be denied especially in the circumstances as narrated above. As such the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 43B of the Act and therefore in our considered view, the same should have been allowed by the authorities below. 12. The Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Ltd [1973] 90 ITR 236 (ALL)] made a distinction between revised return and a correction of return. It held that: There is distinction between a revised return and a correction of return. If the assessee files some application for correcting a return already filed or making amends therein, it would not mean that he h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claiming refunds and reliefs." 14. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti Vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 has held as under: 18. ''The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions of the Act, regardless of whether the over-assessment is as are sult of assessee's own mistake or otherwise, the CIT has the power to correct such an assessment under section 264(1) of the Act. If the CIT refuses to give relief to the assessee, in such circumstances, he would be acting dehors the powers under the Act and the provisions of the Act and, therefore is duty-bound to give reli....