M/S BALAKA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 27.10.2014 and assessment for the year 2008-09 u/s 154/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee has drawn our attention saying that the appeal is barred by limitation by just 4 days. The reason for the delay was explained on the ground of illness of assessee’s counsel who could not file appeal in due time. The assessee filed condonation of delay with original ITA No.190/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Balaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Cir-1 Hgy. Page 2 medical certificate due to non-compliance on the part of assessee’s counsel. We condone the delay and to proceed hearing of the appeal.

It was also noticed that the instant case has been listed 20 times so far and Revenue has moved adjournment petition in this case almost 14 times. The Revenue again filed adjournment applications in 14 cases out of total 19 cases listed for hearing today including the present case. This en block adjournment is not possible and hence we have taken up for hearing and decided the issue by rejecting the adjournment petitions in this case. We have rejected the adjournment petition after hearing Shri M.C. Gope, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Solitary issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act by holding that there was no apparent mistake on record.

Briefly, the facts are that assessee in the present case is a Private Limited Company and engaged in cold storage business. For the year under consideration, assessee has filed online return declaring a profit of Rs.16,47,663/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and demand of Rs.3,67,270/- was raised in the said intimation. Assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act by submitting that the actual profit earned for the current year of Rs.4,50,953/- only. But while filing IT return brought forward profit of Rs.13,49,987.99 was also added in current year’s income inadvertently. Further, assessee submitted that it was the first assessment year when it was made mandatory for corporate assessees to file return electronically. As such, some mistake was crept in filing the return of assessee. However, AO disregarded the claim of assessee by holding that there is no mistake apparent from the record. The assessee should have filed revised return of income to amend the total income as declared by assessee.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT who upheld the order of AO by observing as under:- “6.3 From the above it can be seen that the scope of the AO is limited u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act and is restricted to the return of income filed. In this case the return was processed as per the return of income filed. As A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Balaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Cir-1 Hgy. Page 3 there was no mistake in processing of return, no rectification could have been done. If there was any mistake in the original return filed, the assessee ought to have filed a revised return. Taking all these fact into consideration, appellant’s appeal for consideration of rectification petition, is not accepted.”

We have heard the learned AR and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion we find that the assessee while filing the income tax return online has inadvertently shown total income for Rs. 16,47,660.00 which is inclusive of the income pertaining to the earlier years. As per the assessee the actual amount of total income pertaining to the year under consideration is of Rs. 4,50,953.00 before tax and after tax it is Rs. 2,97,675/-. Accordingly the income tax return showing profit of Rs. 16,47,660/- was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and therefore the demand was raised on the assessee. Subsequently the assessee filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act which was denied by the AO by holding that the assessee was to file our revised return of income. The view of the AO was also confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Now the issue before us arises so as to whether the mistake as discussed above is rectifiable under section 154 of the Act in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. At this juncture, we would like to reproduce the provisions of Section 154 of the Act as under:- “Rectification of mistake. 154. [(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the records an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,- (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; [(b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143;]]