NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 34(1), NEW DELHI

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing officer (AO) rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Income Tax Act requesting for rectification of mistake apparent on record.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO holding the claim of deduction under section 57(iv) made by the assessee is not a make apparent from record, despite the assessee being eligible for the same.

Heard and perused the records.

It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that in for Assessment Year 2012-13 in case of Dhanesh Kumar Jain who is a co-sharer of the agricultural land against which interest was received. The coordinate bench has allowed the appeal of co-sharer with the following observations:- “4……………………………Now, in the case before us, it is a matter of fact borne from the record, that, the assessee had in his return of income for the year under consideration duly disclosed the interest income that was received by him on the compensation qua acquisition of his agricultural land by the Land Collector, Rohtak. As the assessee had in his return of income duly reflected the interest that was received by him on the compensation qua compulsory acquisition of his agricultural land, therefore, the failure on his part to raise a claim for deduction u/s 57(iv) of the Act, to which he was statutorily entitled, being clearly in the nature of a mistake that was glaring, apparent, patent and obvious from record, therein, rendered the order passed by the A.O amenable for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. Insofar the observation of the CIT(A) that as the return of income filed by the assessee was subjected to a simpliciter processing u/s 143(1) of the Act and, had not been subjected to scrutiny assessment, therefore, the same could not have been rectified for allowing the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s 57(iv) of the Act is concerned, we are afraid that the same does not merit acceptance. At this stage, we may herein observe, that as per the clear mandate of law, an intimation or a deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of Section 143 falls within the realm of clause (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Act, therefore, a mistake emanating therefrom, as long as the same is apparent from record, is beyond any doubt rectifiable under the said statutory provision. As regards the view taken by the CIT(A) that the remedy for claim of the aforesaid deduction can be traced in Sec. 119(2)(b) of the Act, the same too does not find favour with us. In our considered view, where a remedy available to an assessee falls within the four corners of a specific statutory provision, then, the same cannot be declined to him, for the reason, that an alternative remedy is available elsewhere. Be that as it may, we are of a strong conviction that as the A.O remains under a statutory obligation to deduce the „true income‟ of an assessee, therefore, the entitlement of the assessee before us towards deduction u/s 57(iv), which is inextricably interwoven or in fact intertwined with the corresponding interest income which had duly been disclosed by him in his return of income, could not have been declined by the A.O on the basis of hyper technical reasons. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court, had observed, that where an assessee who was entitled to claim a Page | 3 deduction had omitted to raise such claim in his return of income or in the course of the assessment proceedings, then, he was entitled to make such claim by moving an application u/s. 154 of the Act. For the sake of clarity the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are reproduced as under :- “An obligation is imposed on the income-tax officer by section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to grant relief there under and the relief cannot be refused merely because the assessee has omitted to claim the relief, but the mere existence of such an obligation on the income-tax officer is not sufficient. Precise factual material and clear data must be contained in the record sufficient to enable the Income-tax Officer to consider whether the relief should be granted under section 84. In the absence of such material, nofault can be found with the Income-tax offer for not making an order under section 84 favouring the assessee” As in the case of the assessee before us, the complete details that were required to allow his claim for deduction u/s 57(iv) of the Act i.e disclosure of interest on compensation was clearly discernible from his return of income and, no new facts were required to be looked into, therefore, in our considered view, there was no justifiable reason for the A.O to have rejected the assessee‟s application u/s 154 of the Act.”

The ld DR could not distinguish the aforesaid facts and circumstances or cited any other proposition of law.

In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the grounds raised