SMART CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CORPORATE WARD 6(3), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the jurisdictional AO/AO-CPC to allow rectification of the return of income after verification, considering the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to provide necessary information.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed incorrect ITR forms, leading to wrong income computation and denial of deductions. Rectification applications filed by the assessee were unsuccessful.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's mistake in filing the ITR forms should prevent the revenue authorities from correcting the income computation based on the law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी महावीर िसंह, उपा� एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Smart Ceramics Pvt. Ltd AO बनाम 87, 100 Feet Road, Sastri Nagar, Corporate Ward-6(3) / Vs. Vadapalani, Chennai -600 026. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAJCS-4237-P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri B. Prathap (CA)- Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
During hearing of captioned appeal, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed wrong ITR forms which has led to wrong computation of income. The Ld. AR also submitted that correct schedules have been filled up by the assessee and rectification application as filed u/s 154 is pending for disposal by CPC. Thus, Ld. AR seeks early disposal of rectification application. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the same on the ground that the assessee should file correct return of income after seeking condonation u/s 119(2)(b). Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
The assessee earned business income and also income under the head capital gains which were routed through Profit & Loss Account. Accordingly, it was required to make necessary computation in Schedule BP and Schedule CG in accordance with applicable provisions. But the assessee failed to fill up the schedules properly which led to processing of return without allowing the deduction to the assessee. The assessee filed rectification application several time without any success. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), vide para 9.10 of the impugned order, held that this issue could not be considered u/s 154 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Quite clearly, it is the fault of the assessee in filling the correct schedules which has led to wrong processing of return of income since computerized processing is done on the basis of assessee’s inputs on ‘garbage-in garbage-out’ principle. However, taxes are to be collected as per the authority of law only and the revenue authorities could not take advantage of assessee’s mistake. Therefore, considering the principle of nature justice, we direct concerned jurisdictional AO / AO-CPC to allow the rectification of the return of income after verification of computation of income. The assessee is directed to fill the correct schedules and provide all the information / documents as required by the assessing authority to facilitate the same.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 26th June, 2023.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026