TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has filed its original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 28.05.2012 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,83,986/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.06.2013 by considering taxable total income of Rs. 3,82,990/- and demand of Rs. 24,940/- was raised. The assessee filed the rectification application on 16.07.2024. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application by observing as under: 5. I have considered the submission of the assessee but not acceptable on the following grounds :- a. The assessee has come up with rectification application much after the period of 04 Years from the end of the financial year in which the intimation u/s 143(1) is passed. Provisions of section 154(7) don't permit any rectification order to be passed beyond such period. Thus, the application have been filed much beyond the time limit given u/s 154(7), the entire proceedings are barred by limitation and hence the same are liable to be rejected. The relevant provision of Section 154(7) are re-produced hereunder for ready reference. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of the beneficiaries, the Return of Income of appellant was supposed to be filed declaring NIL Income, but its tax consultant inadvertently filed Return of Income by declaring taxable total income of Rs. 3,83,986/- instead of declaring income at Nil. The appellant pleaded before the undersigned that the income has already been taxed in the hands of beneficiaries and taxing the same in its hands will lead to double taxation. This being the fact, the undersigned is not specified authority to reduce the return filed by the appellant. The appellant may prefer condonation for its inadvertent mistake in filing return of income before the CBDT u/s 119 of the Act. In view of the above, the ground nos. 2 to 4 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: The following grounds are raised without prejudice to each other:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in upholding the action of Learned AO of rejecting the rectification application u/s 154, solely on the ground that the same was filed beyond the time limit given u/s 154(7).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has erroneously declared its income in the hands of the trust. Therefore, taxing the same in the hands of the trust will lead to double addition. He submitted that the rectification application was filed beyond a period of 4 years and both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) dismissed the same on account of barred by limitation. 6. Referring to the decision of the Pune SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shrikant Herwade Family Trust vide ITA Nos. 1449 to 1452/PUN/2025 order dated 09.07.2025 for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the decision of the Jaipur SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bansal Propbuild Private Limited vs. CIT vide ITA No. 185/JP/2021 order dated 12.04.2022 for assessment year 2011-12, he submitted that the lower authorities should not have dismissed the rectification application on account of delay. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) drew the attention of the Bench to the provisions of section 154 of the Act which empower....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income on 28.05.2012 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,83,986/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.08.2013 accepting the returned income by raising a demand of Rs. 24,940/-. The rectification application was filed by the assessee on 16.07.2024 which is beyond a period of 4 years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. The Assessing Officer dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the provisions of section 154(7) of the Act does not permit any rectification order to be passed beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. We find the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) on this issue. The provisions of section 154(7) of the Act are very clear and unambiguous. The said section provides that no amendment under the provisions of section 154 of the Act shall be made after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was ....