ITO, WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PRIMENTOR CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

It transpires at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from three days delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonaton petition / affidavit on record. the assessee is fair enough in not disputing the solemn averment therein. We accordingly condone the impugned three days’ delay in filing of ITO Wd-10(1) Kol. Vs. M/s Primentor Consultancy & Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 the Revenue’s instant appeal. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

The Revenue’s following substantive grounds reads as under:- “(i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the rectification u/s.154 on the issue of change in accounting policy is not justified, when the AO has rightly rectified the mistake which is plainly and obviously inconsistent with the specific and clear provisions and when the revised return by the assessee was is invalid. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that as per the provisions of sub section (5) of Section 139 of the IT Act, 1961, an assessee can only file a revised return only if it discovers any omissions or any wrong statement in the original return, whereas, the assessee company filed the revised return due to non realization of accrued income from software exports and not due to discovery of any omission or any wrong statement in the original return. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of provision of gratuity of Rs.8,65,470/- on ground that since provision for gratuity was not claimed in the revised return it could not have been added by the AO in the rectification order, whereas, the revised return filed by the assessee is invalid and the disallowances were made by the AO based on return of income submitted originally.”

The Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked sec. 154 rectification proceedings. He then terms the assessee’s revised return to be not admissible as per provision of the Act. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument based on the above extracted pleading. Case file suggests that the Assessing Officer had himself accepted assessee’s revised return dated 30.09.2011 as per sec. 143(3) order dated 14.12.2011. He had also issued the necessary questionnaire to the assessee to this effect making all the relevant queries on 17.10.2011 u/s 142(1) of the Act. All these crucial facts have gone unrebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing. We therefore hold that CIT(A) has rightly held in view of the various judicial precedents that it is not an error apparent on the case of record involved at ITO Wd-10(1) Kol. Vs. M/s Primentor Consultancy & Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 Assessing Officer’s behest. The Revenue fails in its various substantive grounds thereby.