ELAIYUR HWCS LTD. ,PERAMBALUR vs. ITO, WARD -1, PERAMBALUR

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] for the assessment year 2009-10.

The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying the rectification petition filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record.

The ld. AR Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, before us, contended that by inadvertent mistake, the assessee entered salary and wages in Column 15(a) as NIL instead of ₹.9,65,239/- and further insurance expenses to an extent of ₹.297/-. He argued that the assessee incurred the said expenditure, but, however, not entered in the return of income by mistake and also due to technical glitches. Further, he submits that the details of the same were produced before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and also the ld. CIT(A), however, not considered, particularly, by observing that the assessee could not produce any evidence for the technical glitches by the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. DR Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. AR pleaded to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth its case before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for his consideration.

We find the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are placed at page No. 63 of the paper book, wherein, it was contended that the claim of the expenses towards salary, wages and insurance totalling to ₹.9,65,536/- entered in the profit and loss account, which were not reflected in the return of income. We find sales/gross receipts shown by the assessee at ₹.21,28,605/- in the return of income at page 24 of paper book and profit shown at ₹.63,102/- at page 26, which is arrived by considering the expenses like salary, wages and insurance. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider the same and held that the assessee failed to produce evidence regarding the software problem at the filing of return which is clear from para 7.1.2 of the impugned order. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the JAO shall consider the same. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th May, 2024 at Chennai.