TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taxable total income of the appellant in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the disputed adjustment made s was outside the purview of the scope of adjustment contemplated in Section 143(1) of the Act, there by vitiating the impugned adjustment made in the intimation order dated 30.11.2021. 4. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that in any event, the action in adding back the entire receipts earned / received during the assessment without taking into consideration the related expenditure incurred in relation to earning of such receipt, i.e. surplus / deficit as per the receipts and payments account, the consequential re-computation of taxable total income was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the mere error in filing of return of income in ITR 7 as against the "correct Form" in ITR 5 could not automatically result in taxation of the entire gross receipts, there by vitiating the passing of the impugned order." 3. The assessee is an association o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income etc. Further, the appellant could have file revised return immediately after came to know the mistakes in filing the return and could opt other remedy as per the provisions of the Act. But the appellant failed to do so. The taxpayer has to file a return correctly after due verification of the facts mentioned in the ITR filed. The appellant was required to verify the information submitted in the return before submitting verification which is very crucial to avoid further litigation. Intimation under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act is a summary of the detailed submitted to the department and the AO passes the intimation after adjustment allowable under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The provisions of the section 139 clearly states that any person who has filed the original ITR on or before the due date can file a revised ITR before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. 4.3 Choosing the correct ITR form for filing the return is crucial and the appellant was required to fill the information correctly. It is undisputed fact that the appellant is not registered under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that "if assessments are to be completed, deductions and applicable exemptions that are otherwise available to an assessee ought to have been extended by the AO to an assessee before finalizing the assessment." In light of the above submissions the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and allow the expenditure of the assessee to arrive at the total income. 10. Per contra the ld.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the revised return in the correct ITR form has not been filed by the assessee and hence prayed for confirming the order of ld.CIT(A). 11. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee has filed the return of income on or before the due date in Form ITR 7, even though the assessee does not have registration u/s.12AA of the Act. However, we note that the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s.11 of the Act. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A) order, it is found that the intimation u/s.143(1) was confirmed for the only reason that the assessee has not filed the revised return in form ITR 5. It is pertinent to note that the CPC, Bengalu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 134 of the Act. 23. The last date for filing the returns under Section 139(4) of the Act would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552/1995 (77) ELT 511, had held as under:- "When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule ....