M/S. HOTEL MAHADEV,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] -2, Muzaffarnagar dated 12.01.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

The solitary grievance raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the rejection of application u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’ by the Assessing Officer.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the original return of income was E-filed by the assessee on 05.09.2013. Thereafter, the assessee revised the return of income once again Electronically, on 11.03.2012. The assessee moved a rectification application pointing out that the income assessed u/s 143(1) of the Act was not in conformity with that of the income returned in revised return of income filed on 11.03.2012. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application pointing out that it is not maintainable.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success.

Before us, the ld. AR strongly submitted that in the revised return of income, interest paid to partners and salary amounting to Rs. 2,51,038/- was claimed, which was not allowed while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and since the mistake was apparent from record, the Assessing Officer should have rectified the same u/s 154 of the Act.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the original return filed on 05.09.2013 was a belated return and hence, has to be considered u/s 139(4) of the Act. Section 139(5) of the Act contains provisions for revising return of income and the same reads as under:

A perusal of the above section clearly shows that only those returns which have been filed u/s 139(1) of the Act can be revised and since the return of income of the assessee was filed u/s 139(4) of the Act, in our understanding of the law, the same could not have been revised and, therefore, there is no error in the findings of the Assessing Officer and since the same has been confirmed by the CIT(A), no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.