SANTOSH INFRA PROJECTS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(4), GHAZIABAD

Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,09,347/-.

Ground nos. 2 to 8: The appellant has challenged the order passed u/s 154 contending that reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been given to the appellant. According to the appellant only mistake apparent from record can be rectified. Examination of facts reveals that appellant filed belated ITR u/s 139(5) on 28.01.2015 declaring a total return of Rs.9,09,347/-. The said ITR was revised on 08.02.2015 to reduce the total income at Rs. 1,71,467/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income. The overlooking of mandatory provision of law i.e. accepting the revised return for a belated return is an act of overlooking of mandatory provision of section 139(5) accordingly comes under the purview of mistake apparent from record. Provisions of section 139 prohibit revision of belated return of income. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs Ashok Textiles Ltd. (SC) 41 ITR 732, Addl. CIT vs India Tin Industries (P) Ltd. (Kar) 166 ITR 454 and CIT vs Peirce Leslie & Co. Limited (Mad) 227 ITR 759. Keeping in view above position of law and facts of the case it is held that there is no aberration in the action of the AO rectifying the order u/s 143(3) u/s 154. Thus, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. I do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act. I find the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has relied upon various decisions and there is nothing on record to controvert the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

Accordingly, I uphold the same and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

The Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 16.11.2021.