Deep Diamond India Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.5888/Mum/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that a mistake which is apparent from the record, and which the Assessing Officer's own processing or the processing unit has already rectified or can rectify by verification of the return as filed, is a mistake apparent from the record amenable to correction; accordingly, where the assessee's rectification request identifies such a mistake, the first appellate authority is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the e-filed return and correct it, and an appeal by the revenue against such a direction becomes infructuous where the processing unit has already accepted the assessee's request and rectified the mistake.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सर्वश्री आय.सी.शभमव, रेखम सदस्म एवुं श्री संजम गगव, न्ममयमक सदस्म BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5888/Mum/2012 ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10) ACIT, Rage-8(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s Deep Diamond India Ltd., 202, Cosmos Courts, S.V.Road, Vile Parle (W ), Mumbai -
400056 स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACD 1730 D (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)
यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Love Kumar यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri vishwas V. Mehendale
सन ु र्मई की तमयीख / Date of Hearing : 07/05/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date of Pronouncement 05/06/2015
आदे श / O R D E R
PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-
16, Mumbai, dated 23-7-2012 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the
matter order passed u/s.154 of the I.T.Act.
2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this
case, the AO rejected the rectification application u/s.154 dated
06;01.2012 filed by the assessee in view of the fact that tax has been
computed correctly on the income returned by the assessee and fresh
claim for change of income is not allowable u/s. 154 as the same is not a
mistake apparent from record. The Ld. AO also noted ~at fresh change of 2 ITA No.5888/12
rectification can only be made only under the provisions of sec. 139(5)of
the Act. For AY. 2009-10, it had filed e-return declaring income of
Rs.29,22,194/- as under :-
Profit after tax as per P& L A/c Rs.21,43,138/-
Add:
Expenses debited to P&L A/c. considered Under other heads of income (Correct description Should have been considered separately) Rs.10,42,301/-
Less: .
Income credited to P&L A/ c considered Under other heads of income Rs. 5,250/-
Total Gross Rs.31,80,189/-
Add: Depreciation considered separately Since the same is provided in the accounts As per the Company Law. Rs.5,46,545/-
Less: Depreciation as per 32(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 Rs.8,04,540/-
Taxable Income Rs.29,22,194
In return it had mistakenly quoted profit after tax amt i.e Rs 21,43,138/ - in
column profit before tax which should actually be Rs 31,61,399/- including
disallowance amt Rs 10,18,261/-. Further it had mistakenly quoted
10,42,301 under expenses debited to profit and loss account under other
heads of income but actually it should be nil. However, the Ld. AO has
quoted profit before tax amt correctly but have added back Rs 10,18,261/-
which is disallowed expense already included in profit before tax again as
other income which is wrong.
3. While processing the return U / s. 143(1) by the CPC Bangalore,
the unit added the amount of Rs.10,18,261/- which was included in the 3 ITA No.5888/12
total of Rs.10,42,301/ - and wrongly to be shown under the other heads of
income. The correct addition as per the return should have been the
disallowable items of expenses considered separately Rs.10,42,301/- as
under:
Provision for Income Tax & FBT Rs. 9,20,000/-
Deferred tax Rs. 79,721/- Loss on Sale of Fixed Assets Rs. 18,540/- Total Rs. 10,18,261/-
4. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the e-
filed return and correct the mistake pointed out by the assessee.
5. Ld. DR fairly conceded that CPC Bangalore itself vide order dated
5-6-2012 has accepted the request of the assessee, meaning thereby
mistake pointed out by the assessee has already been rectified, therefore,
appeal filed by the revenue has become infructous.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and found that mistake
pointed out by the assessee has already been rectified by CPC
Bangalore, who processed assessee's return. Furthermore, there was
apparent mistake, accordingly, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO
to verify the e-return and correct the mistake.
7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 05/06/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (संजम गगव) (आय.सी.शभमव) (SANJAY GARG) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनमंक Dated 05/06/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, यन.स/ PS 4 ITA No.5888/12
आदे श की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीरमथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.
3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. आमकय आमक् ु त / CIT आदे शािसार/ BY ORDER,
5. वर्बमगीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गमडव पमईर / Guard file.
उप/सहायक पुंजीकार सत्ममवऩत प्रयत //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free