Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRII.C. SUDHIR & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
Per Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member:
This appeal is directed against the order of CIT (A) dated 11.03.2014. The grounds of appeal
are as under: “1. That Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order without providing an opportunity of being head after written submission filed by the assessee. Hence order passed by CIT (A) is against the principle of natural justice.
2. That without prejudice to ground no. 1, section 143(a) disallowance of 80(i)(c) of I.T. Act is out of jurisdiction in view of the following judgment : (a). Sumanchandra G. Mehta vs. ITO 21(2) (ii), & 565.MUM/2012.
(b). Gemini Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT, Company Circle – II(2), Chennai, Therefore, CPC do not have any jurisdiction and confirmed by theCIT (A) is bad in law.
The assessee has not pressed ground No. 1 and therefore, the same is dismissed.
Ground No. 2 is against disallowance of deduction of Rs.7,92,209/- u/s. 80(I) (c) of the IT Act. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2009 for A.Y. 2009-10. While filing the return of income, as submitted before us, in Schedule 80(I)(c) of ITR-IV produced before us, the assessee has mentioned at Sl. No. 2 about deduction in respect of industrial undertaking located in Himanchal Pradesh and claimed deduction of Rs.7,92,209/-. This return was processed on 18.03.2010 wherein the deduction u/s. 80(I) (c) was not allowed. Against this, the assessee preferred an application u/s. 154 which was rejected withoutgranting benefit of deduction to the assessee. It was stated in rectification order that during the processing of return u/s. 143(1), the deduction under Chapter VI-A has not been allowed as the assessee has not filed corresponding schedules. However, through rectification, the same has not been corrected by the assessee. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who rejected the appeal holding that the assessee has not submitted necessary schedules and in absence of any schedule, the AO was justified in not rectifying the mistake. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The learned AR of the appellant has submitted that the assessee has disclosed the deduction u/s. 80(I) (c) of the Act in the e-return filed by the assessee, copyof which was admittedly placed before us in paper book at page 26 to 44. At page 42 in Schedule 80(I)(c) at Sl. No. 2, the assessee has disclosed deduction in respect of industrial undertaking located at Himanchal Pradesh amounting to Rs.7,92,209/-. Therefore, he submitted that when the deduction is claimed in the return e-filed, the CPC does not have jurisdiction for making any adjustment thereon u/s. 143(1) (a) of the Act. 05. The ld. DR submitted that as no schedules have been filed by the assessee, thededuction was not granted.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is submitted that the assessee has disclosed the claim of deduction in schedule 80(I) (c) of ITR-IV filed by the assessee as per copy of ITR IV submitted before us.
From that it is apparent that the assessee has made disclosure at required place in ITR-IV. The ld.DR could not show us the place where the assessee was further required to make disclosure for the claim of disputedadjustment of deduction. Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act permits only two types of adjustments respect to any arithmetical error in the return or any incorrect claim, which is apparent from the information in the return. It is apparent that the claim of the assessee is there in the return of income and our attention could not be drawn by the Revenue that how the claim of the assessee is incorrect. It is also not arithmetical error. Therefore, we are of the view that the adjustment made in 143(1) (a) is beyond the scope of the section and therefore required to be rectified as mistake apparent from record. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the return of income filed electronically by the assessee and the claim of 80(I) (c) made there under and if such claim is found to have been made in the original return field by the assessee with CPC, AO is directed to allow deduction of the same by rectifying the impugned intimation passed by the CPC, Bangalore. We are not adjudicating onthe admissibility or otherwise on merits of the claim of the assessee u/s. 80(I) (c). In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal is allowed and the order of the CIT (A) is reversed to the extent of above directions.