Smt. Hasumatiben Dayhabhai Mistry, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Surat

ITA 169/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0782 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SETH
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 139(5); 6; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER HASUMATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY, PROP. OF SWASTIK TWISTING & WARPING WORKS, P - 347, NEW GIDC KATARGAM, SURAT PAN: ABCPM7914L (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 9(2), SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI JAMES KURIAN , SR. D . R . ASSESSEE BY: S H RI SAPNESH SETH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 08 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 08 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - V, SURAT DATED 28 - 10 - 2014 IN APPEAL NO. CAS/V/128/2013 - 14 , IN PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 169/ A HD/20 15 A S SESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 2 2. THE INSTANT APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOW ING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION FOR RECTIF ICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 & THEREBY ERRED IN NOT ISSUING REFUND OF RS. 6,647/ - CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE DEMAND RAISED AGAINST ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID AS IN TIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 WAS NOT SERVED ON ASSESSEE. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ACTION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THIS ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AS AN INDIVIDUAL. SHE FILED RETURN ON 09 - 09 - 2008 STATING INCOME OF RS. 1,38,792/ - THEREBY CLAIMING REFUND OF RS. 6,647/ - . THIS CASE FILE DOES NOT REVEAL ANY EVIDENCE OF PROCESSING THEREOF U/S . 143(1) OF THE ACT FOLLOWED BY ANY INTIMATION. THE ACIT THEREAFTER ISSUED A DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16 - 07 - 2012 INVOLVING A SUM OF RS. 14,37,190/ - . THE ASSESSEE MOVED THE IMPUGNED SECTION 154 RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 10 - 10 - 2013 READING AS UNDER: - RE : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE AS SESSMENT YEAR, I HAVE TO DRAW YO UR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. KINDLY, RECTIFY THE SAME U /S.154 OF THE L.T. ACT. I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 3 SIR, I HAVE ALREADY MADE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 08/08/2012, VIDE RECEIPT NO. 101080812051022 IS PENDING. SIR, T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 09.09.2008 VI DE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT NO.09 21004226, THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED WAS RS. 1,38,792/ - , TAX PAYABLE WAS RS. NIL, T DS WAS RS. 664 7/ - . THUS, THERE WAS A REFUND DUE TO ME WAS RS. 6647/ - . THUS THERE IS NO DEMAND OUTSTANDING. SIR, MINE WAS THE AUDIT CASE IN THAT YEAR. THE AUDIT REPORT WAS ALSO OBTAI NED BEFORE THE DUE DATE. BUT, SIR WHILE PREPARING THE PAPER RETURN OF INCOME OP. COMPUTER, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN FILING THE FIGURES. THE PURCHASE FIGURE O F RS. 35,33,426/ - WAS PRINTED AT RS. 3,33,426/ - . ONLY THE DIGIT 5 (FIVE) IS MISSING, ALL THE OTHER FIG URES WERE CORRECTLY ENTERED. THUS, THERE IS A MIS TAKE OF RS. 32,00,000/ - IN PURCHASES. THE BEAM PASRAMANI EXPENSES OF RS. 29,810/ - , THE WARPING CHARGES OF RS. 57,365/ - AND T HE YAM PROCESSING, EXPENSES OF RS. 35,287/ - WAS REMAINED TO BE ENTERED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME THROUGH MISTAKE. THER E WAS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM IN GENERATING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME. ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THUS, T HERE IS A TOTAL MISTAKE OF RS. 33,22,462/ - SIR, IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME THE BALANCE SHEET IS CORRECT. THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS ALSO CORRECTLY ENTERED. THE TAX CALCULATION WAS ALSO CORRECT (THE TAX PAYABLE IS NIL). ONLY THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS INCORRECTLY FILLED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, DUE TO THE ABOVE MISTAKES. SIR, AS MINE WAS THE AUDIT CASE IN THAT YEAR, ALL PURCHASES ARE VOUCHED AND VERIFIED BY THE AUDITOR. PAYMENT OF PURCHASES WERE ALSO MADE BY CHEQUES. SIR, THE NEW ANNEXURELESS RETURNS WERE INTRODUCED JUST BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND TH IS WAS A GENUINE HUMAN MISTAKE. KINDLY, RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. SIR, I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT SET, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND AUDIT REPORT FOR YOUR VERIFICATION. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED IS ALSO ENCLOSED. I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 4 4 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE ABOVE RECTIFICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 16 - 010 - 2013 INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT OF FILING OF A REVISED RETURN AND THERE IS FURTHER NO ARITHMETIC ERROR OR ANY INCO RRECT CLAIM SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD HERSELF STATED PURCHASE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO BE RS. 3,33,426/ - . HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION PLEA TO BE BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ALL THIS RESULTED IN REJECTION OF ASSESSEE S RECTIFICATION. 5. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION AS FOLLOWS: - 6.1.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RECTIFICATION ORDER AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL - GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO REJECTING APPELLANT'S APPLICATI ON FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 & THEREBY ERRED IN NOT ISSUING REFUND OF RS. 6,647/ - CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HIS ROI FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T NO. 92004226 ON 09.09.2008 SHOWING AMOUNT OF PURCHASE AT RS. 3,33,426/ - . THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN ITR - 4 WHEREIN IN PART A - P&L AT S. NO. 6 THE 'PURCHASES' HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT 3,33,426/ - AND THE 'PROFIT' AT S. NO. 43 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 34,87,179/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE FIGURE OF PURCHASE OF RS. 35,33,426/ - WAS TYPED AS 3,33,426/ - AND SOME EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD 'BEAM PASRAMNI' OF RS. 29,810/ - , 'WARPING EXPENSES' OF RS. 57,365/ - AND 'YARN PROCESSING EXPENSES' OF RS. 35,287/ - WAS NOT CLAIMED UNDER THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT HAS TWO DIMENSIONS - FIRST, WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 , OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. SECONDLY, WHETHER ANY CLAIM CAN BE MA DE FOR DEDUCTIONS OR REVISION SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THROUGH FILING OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE TWO DIMENSIONS ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING PARA'S 6.1.2 THE RETURN OF INCOME IS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT AND ONLY ANY ARITH METICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN OR ANY INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN, CAN BE I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 5 ADJUSTED U/S 143(L)(A) OF THE IT ACT. HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACT IS VERY DIFFERENT AS THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS CL AIMED AN AMOUNT OF PURCHASE AT RS. 3,33,426/ - AND OMISSION OF CERTAIN CLAIM OF EXPENSES, WHICH IS NEITHER ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR NOR AN INCORRECT CLAIM. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008 - 09 THAT THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN SHOWN OF RS. 3,33,42 6/ - . THEREFORE, ANY ADJUSTMENT REGARDING QUANTUM OF PURCHASE AND AMOUNT OF OTHER UNCLAIMED EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT THEREFORE, REMEDIAL ACTION U/S 154 CANNOT BE DONE IN RESPECT OF THOSE ADJUSTMEN TS, WHICH CANNOT BE DONE U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT CAN BE PASSED ONLY WHERE THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND MUST BE OBVIOUS AND PATENT. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF IT ACT , 1961 READS AS UNDER: SECTION 154 [(L) 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 INTIMATIO N OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143,]] [(1A) WHERE ANY MATTER91 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN ANY PROCEEDING BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REVISION RELATING TO AN ORDER REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1), THE AUTHORITY PASSING SUCH ORDER MA Y, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, AMEND THE ORDER UNDER THAT SUB - SECTION IN RELATION TO ANY MATTER OTHER THAN THE MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN SO CONSIDERED AND DECIDED.] (2) SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS SE C TION, THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED - ( A) MAY MAKE AN AMENDMENT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF ITS OWN MOTION, AND (B) SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT FOR RECTIFYING ANY SUCH MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WHERE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IS TH E [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], BY THE...............................' 6.1.3 THE PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT ANY MISTAKE 'APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' CAN BE RECTIFIED. THIS MEANS THE MISTAKE SHOULD BE VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORDS. THIS FACT HAS NOW BECOME A SETTLED PRINCIPAL IT THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHICH IS REPORTED VIDE 284 ITR 323 IN THE CASE OF GOETZE(INDIA) LTD., VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE HON'BLE I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 6 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE VOLKART BROTHERS CA SE (SC) 82 ITR SO/ HELD THAT THE MISTAKE WAS BE OBVIOUS AND PATENT - NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE TWO OPINIONS - A DECISIONS ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 6.1.4 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE VARIOUS COURTS IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: - (I) 228 ITR 463 (SC) HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. (II) 2 27 ITR 843 (DELHI) MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE LTD. (III) 231 ITR 192 (MAD.) T RICHY DISTILLERS & CHEMICALS, (IV) 233 ITR 203 (KAR.) KRONE COMMUNICATION LTD. 6.1.5 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT AND CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE RAISED REGARDING ERROR IN CLAIMING EXPENSES DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM RECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES HAVE BEEN OMITTED AND THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN WRONGLY MENTIONED NEEDS DELIBERATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS FROM RECORDS AND IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM REC ORD INCLUDES ARITHMETICALLY ERROR, INCORRECT CLAIM WHICH IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN, ETC. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO NEEDS DELIBERATIONS, VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND DO NOT FALL IN THE CA TEGORY OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. 6.2. 1 THE OTHER ISSUE ARISES HERE WHETHER AN ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM ANY DEDUCTIONS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE AO OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND CLAIM TO REVISE HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME AFTER FILING ORIGINAL RETURN OTHER THAN BY WAY OF FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 139(5)? IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE AND NATURAL THAT IN SUBMITTING A RETURN, SOME BONA FIDE OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT MAY HAVE OCCURRED. IN ORDER TO OBVIATE THIS POSSIBILITY THE. LEGISLATURE HAS MADE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 139(5) ENABLING AN ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A REVISED RETURN. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO FILE REVISED RETURN IF HE DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL FILED RETURN. SUCH A REVISED RETURN CAN BE FURNISHED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THUS, THE STATUTE PROVIDES SAF EGUARD TO AN ASSESSEE IN CASE HE DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN TO FILE A REVISED RETURN. THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT IS THAT THIS OMISSION I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 7 OR WRONG STATEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN MUST BE DUE TO BONA FIDE INADVERTENCE OR MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2.2 THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REVISED RETURN AND A CORRECTION IN THE ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN. IF AN ASSESSEE FILES AN APPLICATION OR REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR CORRECTING A RETURN ALREADY FILED OR FOR MAKI NG SOME AMENDMENTS THEREIN, IT WOULD NOT CERTAINLY MEAN THAT HE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN. SUCH A PETITION IS NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT IS THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A REVISED RETURN IS FILED UNDER SECTION 139(5) THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REVISED RETURN AND NOT OTHERWISE. IN ABSENCE OF THE REVISED RETURN AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(5), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL RETURN. THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT TO ENABLE AN ASSESSEE TO REVISE HIS INCOME BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE APPELLANT. IF SUCH REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME IS ACCEPTED, THEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF ENACTING SECTION 139(5) FOR FILING REVISED RETURN SHALL BE FRUSTRATED AND PROVISION OF SAID SECTION BECOMES REDUNDANT. 6.2.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO ENTERT AIN FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN OTHER THAN BY FILING OF REVISED RETURN. LAW IS WELL SETTLED TH AT WHEN THE STATUTE REQUIRES TO DO CERTAIN THING IN CERTAIN WAY, THE THING MUST BE DONE IN THAT WAY OR NOT AT ALL. OTHER METHODS OR MODE OF PERFORMANCE ARE IMPLIEDLY AND NECESSARILY FORBIDDEN. THE AFORESAID SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION IS BASED ON A LEGAL MAXIM 'EXPRESS/O UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIS', MEANING THERE BY THAT IF A STATUTE PROVIDES FOR A THING TO BE CLONE' IN A PAR TICULAR MANNER, THEN IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT MANNER AND IN NO OTHER MANNER AND FOLLOWING OF OTHER COURSE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. (NAZIR AHMED V. KING EMPEROR AIR 1936 PC 253; RAM PHAL KUNDU V. KAMAL GHARMA [2004] 2 SCC 759 AND INDIAN BANK'S ASSOCIATION V. DE VKALA CONSULTANCY SERVICE AIR 2004 SC 2615). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE ORISSA RURAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD, 343 ITR 316(0RISSA). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS BEING DISMISSED. 6.3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONTENTION BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND IS NEITHER PATENT NOR OBVIOUS. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 8 INCOME TO CLAIM DEDUCTIONS AS ENVISAGED IN THE LAW. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.3.2 THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSION HAD ALSO CONTENDED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INTIMATION U/S 143(1) AND THEREFORE THE D EMAND RAISED FOR AY 2011 - 12 IS NOT VALID. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL TAKEN UP BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS. CASE FILE PERUSED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE FIRST Y EAR OF FILING ELECTRONIC RETURN . THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS ALSO ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO. 6/20 08 DATED 18 - 07 - 2008 ADVISING TH E ASSESSEES TO RETAIN WITH THEMSELVES ALL ANNEXURES RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME, TDS/TCS CERTIFICATES, CHALLANS , COUNTERFOILS RELA TING TO ADVANCE AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAXES AND AUDIT REPORT TO BE PRODUCED AS AND WHEN CALLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE REPEAT THAT NEITHER THERE IS ANY SUCH CALL OR INTIMATION OF PROCESSING FORTHCOMING FROM THE CASE FILE. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E FAIR ENOUGH IN NOT SPECIFICALLY REJECTING ASSESSEE S PLEA OF HAVING INCORPORATED AN INCORRECT FIGURE OF RS. 3,33,426/ - AS EXTRACTED FROM HER RECTIFICATION PETITION. WE COME TO PAGES 10 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK STATING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 35,62,254/ - ALONG WITH NIL TAX PAYABLE, PURCHASES OF RS. 3,33,426/ - , PROFITS BEFORE TAXES OF RS. 34,87, 179/ - AND AGGREGATE INCOME OF RS . 1,38,790/ - ; RESPECTIVELY. HER P & L ACCOUNT AT PAGE 33 OF THE CASE FILE REVEALS PURCHASE FIGURE S OF RS. 35,33,426/ - RESULTING IN NET PROFITS OF RS. 1,64,716.75/ - . THESE FIGURES ARE BASED ON DULY AUDITED BOOKS. THERE IS NO ISSUE BEFORE US ON CORRECTNESS THEREOF. WE OBSERVE IN I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 9 TOTALITY OF ALL THESE FACTS THAT THE ONLY OPTION BEFORE THIS ASSESSEE WAS TO FILE FOR THE IMPUGNED RECTIFI CATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE CORRECT FIGURES GIVEN IN HER P & L ACCOUNT AND BOOKS WHICH WERE RETAINED AS PER THE BOARD S CIRCULAR HEREINABOVE (SUPRA). HON BLE KARNATKA HIGH COURT IN ITO VS. SMT. MANDIRA D. BAKHARIA (2001) 250 ITR 432 (KAR) UP H LD S AN IDENTICAL RECTIFICATION CLAIM FILED ALONG WITH ACCOUNTS REPORT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES THEREIN VIS - - VIS FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY ACCEPT ASSESSEE S ARGUMENTS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW HER RECTIFICATION PETITION FOLLOWED BY COMPUTATION OF APPROPRIATE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER LAW. 7. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN HER INSTANT APPEAL. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 16 - 08 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 16 /08 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , I.T.A NO. 169 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO HASUM ATIBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRY VS. ITO 10 / ,