M/S A.K ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 34(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in not rectifying the mistake in taking the wrong income declared, while filing e-return of income despite the fact that revised computation was given during the course of assessment proceedings.

I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically in ITR-V for the relevant AY 2007-08 (this was the first year of filing of return through e-return). In this return of income the assessee disclosed income to the tune of Rs.6,32,970/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee against this intimation u/s. 154 of the Act moved a rectification application stating that assessee’s gross total income is at Rs.1,38,058/- and due to wrong computation the income is declared at Rs.6,32,970/-. The AO rejected this application vide its order No. ITO, Wd- 34(2)/Calcutta/08-09/12 dated 30.04.2009. In the meantime, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and assessment was framed u/s/. 143(3) of the Act by the AO vide order dated 17.11.2009 thereby treating the income as per e-filing dated 31.10.2007 at Rs.6,32,970/- despite the fact that assessee before him contested that his income is to the tune of Rs.1,38,058/-. The CIT(A) agreed to the mistake apparent from record but stated that this should have been rectified by the assessee itself by filing revised return, which it has not done. Accordingly, he has not accepted the plea of the assessee. I find that the assessee has filed revised computation

Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) prohibits the AO from rectifying the mistake in the return of income filed by the assessee but appellate authorities can rectify the same. I find force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Goetz (India) Pvt. Ltd., supra is applicable to the AO and not to the appellate authorities. Accordingly, I direct the AO to take the correct income declared by the assessee as gross total income i.e. Rs.1,36,058/- and recomputed the income accordingly.

The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in disallowing the expenses. I find from the facts of the case that the AO has disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee on estimate/ad hoc basis. Even the CIT(A) has confirmed these expenses just on conjecture and surmises and without any basis. I find no reason to sustain the same and the same is hereby deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2015 Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member Dated : 16th December, 2015 Jd.(Sr.P.S.)