Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

Netra Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (09 Mar 2022)

A mistake apparent on the record must be patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning


Direct Taxation

The facts of the case are that, assessee filed a loss return of Rs.1,76,77,280. However, the said return was revised to rectify certain mistakes declaring a loss of Rs.1,37,90,289. The ACIT, issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the losses of current year to be carried forward was determined at Rs.1,08,668 as against loss of Rs.1,37,90,289 carried forward in the return of income. The assessee filed rectification petition seeking above correction in the intimation. The order under Section 154 was passed by ACIT wherein it was reiterated that loss to be carried forward was at Rs.1,08,668 as against the claim of assessee at Rs.1,37,90,289. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the ACIT(CPC).

It is well settled that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which, there may be conceivably two opinions. In the present case, the Departmental authorities have categorically denied the that the construction of commercial building was completed and it was ready to let out and that assessee had taken steps to let out the property. These findings of the revenue authorities cannot be sought to be rectified in the rectification proceedings.

In the present case, the assessee has not enclosed any evidence along with the return suggesting completion of construction of commercial building and its readiness to let out, as such, the ACIT(CPC) denied the interest claimed by the assessee by way of intimation sent to the assessee. The assessee thereafter sought to rectify the same vide proceedings under Section 154 of the Act which is not permissible. In the absence of any such evidence furnished, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in rejecting the claim of assessee. The issue raised by the assessee is a debatable issue which cannot be rectified in the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. There is no infirmity in the orders of lower authorities. Appeal dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved