Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Indl.), New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2162/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69452 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.2162/DEL/2013 2162/DEL/2013 2162/DEL/2013 2162/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 0909 09 SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL (INDL.), (INDL.), (INDL.), (INDL.), 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL SARABHA SARABHA SARABHA SARABHAI, I,I, I, ASAF ALI ROAD, ASAF ALI ROAD, ASAF ALI ROAD, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AAHPA6311M. AAHPA6311M. AAHPA6311M. AAHPA6311M. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -30(1), 30(1), 30(1), 30(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y.KAKKAR, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D DD D.AGRAWAL, .AGRAWAL, .AGRAWAL, .AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2013 FOR THE AY 2008- 09. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE D ENIAL OF THE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX (S TT) PAID TO ADROIT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD. AMOUNTING TO `18,93,867/ -. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF `34,56,112/-. ON THE ABOVE INCOME, INCOME TAX P AYABLE INCLUDING SURCHARGE AND EDUCATION CESS WAS `11,16,950/-. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF TAX AMOUNTI NG TO `19,71,117/- AS UNDER:- ITA-2162/DEL/2013 2 LESS : PREPAID TAX ADVANCE TAX BANK OF INDIA 11/03/2008 25750 BANK OF INDIA 14/12/2007 25750 BANK OF INDIA 14/09/2007 25750 77250 TDS 1893867 1971117 TAX PAYABLE/REFUND -854167 3. IN THE INTIMATION, THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS ACCEPTED BUT THE CREDIT FOR TAX PAID WAS ALLOWED ONL Y AT `77,250/- AND THE CREDIT FOR THE TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AT `18,93,867/- WAS NOT ALLOWED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED A LETTER ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2012 REQUESTING TO RECTIFY THE INTIMATION BY WHICH DEMAND OF `12,75,127/- WAS RAISED. THE LETTER READS A S UNDER:- WITH REGARD TO ABOVE IT IS RESPECT FULLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 12/3 ABOVE AMBALAL SARABAI, ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI 110002 AND IT IS REQUESTED THAT FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE MAY PLEASE BE ADDRESSED TO NEW ADDRESS. WE MAY REQUEST THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED YOUR NOTICE ON 19/11/2012 RESULTING IN DELAY IN COMPLIANCE OF YOUR NOTICE DATED 29/10/2012. WE MAY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED REPLY ON 7/02/2012 IN REPLY TO DEMAND OF RS.13,27,47 0 AND PHOTO COPIES OF 3 ADVANCE TAX CHALLANS, 2 STT CERTIFI CATE WERE ALSO FILED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE CREDIT F OR THE 3 ADVANCE TAX CHALLANS AND 2 STT CERTIFICATES U/S 88E(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND TO PASS NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDERS, TO REDUCE THE DEMAND OF RS.12,75,127/- TO NIL . 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME VIDE ORDER DA TED 16.01.2013 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- SUB : REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF DEMAND OF RS.12,75,127/- IN THE CASE OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR ITA-2162/DEL/2013 3 AGGARWAL, D-149, KAMLA NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PAN NO.AAHPA6311M A.Y. 2008-09 REG. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR APPLICATION DATED 22-11-2012 ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. IN THIS REGARD, YOU ARE HE REBY INFORMED THAT THE REBATE U/S 88E(2) IS ALLOWED ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE SAME IS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . SINCE YOU HAVE NOT CLAIMED THE SAME IN YOUR RETURN O F INCOME, HENCE YOUR APPLICATION FOR CLAIM OF REBATE U/S 88E(2) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ABOVE ORDE R WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE PROPER CLAIM OF REBATE U/S 88E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO F ILE A REVISED RETURN TO MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIM. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER U/S 143(1) W HICH REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 154. AFTER CONSIDERING A LL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT SECTION 88E OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT PROVI DES REBATES IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSE E ON THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PAID THE STT AMOU NTING TO `18,93,867/- IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFE RED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THAT DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE, THE ABOVE STT PAYMENT WAS DISCLOSE D IN THE COLUMN OF TDS RATHER THAN IN THE COLUMN OF REBATE U NDER SECTION 88E. THAT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CERTIFICA TE FOR THE STT ITA-2162/DEL/2013 4 PAYMENT WAS ALSO ATTACHED. THUS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT THE INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME INCOME WAS ACCEP TED UNDER SECTION 143(1). THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE PAYMEN T OF STT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REBATE IS DENIED BECAUSE OF SIMPLE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN FILLING UP OF THE DETAILS OF STT IN THE WRONG COLUMN. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE SH OULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CLERICAL MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSE L. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD . VIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.214/2013 DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2013 WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE OFFICER SHOULD NOT TA KE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHTS. HE, THERE FORE, SUBMITTED THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FURN ISHED THE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF STT PAYMENT. THEREFORE, I T WAS THE DUTY OF THE OFFICER TO GUIDE THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF ASSESSEE COMMITTED SOM E MISTAKE IN FILLING THE FORM. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OF NOT GIVING CREDIT IN THE STT PAYMENT. 7. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1). THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143( 1) IS LIMITED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ACT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 143(1). THAT REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E IS PE RMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH STT IS PAID IS OFFERED AS THE INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE H EAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, FILLED THE FORM RELATING TO STT REBATE. IN THIS REGARD, SHE REFERRED TO PAGE 27 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND POI NTED OUT THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS A COLUMN OF DISCLOSI NG THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES T RANSACTION TAX ITA-2162/DEL/2013 5 AND, IN ALL THE FOUR COLUMNS, THE ASSESSEE FILLED ZERO . THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS SHOWN THAT THE INCO ME ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGEABLE TO STT IS ZERO. IN THE CO LUMN OF STT PAID, AGAIN ZERO IS FILLED AND IN THE COLUMN OF REBATE UND ER SECTION 88E, AGAIN ZERO IS FILLED. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF STT PAID AS TDS WHILE, IN FACT, NO SUCH TDS WAS DEDUCTED B Y ADROIT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD. AND IT WAS ONLY STT. NOW , THE LIMITED QUESTION BEFORE THE ITAT IS WHETHER WHILE PROCESSING TH E RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED ANY APP ARENT MISTAKE IN NOT ALLOWING ANY REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS STATED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THERE IS NO IN COME ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION T AX AND THERE IS NO SUCH STT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO REBATE ALLOWABLE, T HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAS RIGHTLY ACCEP TED THE ASSESSEES RETURNED INCOME AND ALLOWED CREDIT FOR ADVANC E TAX. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE PRECI SE QUESTION FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY APPARENT M ISTAKE IN THE INTIMATION SENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON ACCOUNT OF N ON-ALLOWING OF REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. SE CTION 88E OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- 88E. 88E. 88E. 88E. (1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IN A PREVIOUS YEAR INCLUDES ANY INCOME, CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', ARISING FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, HE SHALL BE ENTITL ED TO A DEDUCTION, FROM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS, COMPUTED IN THE ITA-2162/DEL/2013 6 MANNER PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2), OF AN AMOUNT EQUA L TO THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX PAID BY HIM IN RESPECT O F THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THE COU RSE OF HIS BUSINESS DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED PROVIDED PROVIDED PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHAL L BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM: PROVIDED FURTHER PROVIDED FURTHER PROVIDED FURTHER PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUB- SECTION (2). (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION, SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE A VERAGE RATE OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME. [(3) NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN, OR AFTER, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2009.] EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE EXPRESSIONS, 'TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTION' AND 'SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING S RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004.]. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT REBATE UNDER S ECTION 88E IS ALLOWABLE PROVIDED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INC LUDES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTI ONS. THE REBATE IS RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCOME TAX PAYABLE ON THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS A SCHEDULE FOR CLAIMING REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E. THE ASSESSEE FILLED THE SAME AND WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FO R READY REFERENCE:- ITA-2162/DEL/2013 7 1 INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSACTIONS CHARGEABLE TO SEC URITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME I BEING FROM NON SPECULATIVE BUSINESS INCLUDED IN A34 OF SCHEDULE BP 1I 0 II BEING FROM SPECULATIVE BUSINESS INCLUDED IN B3 8 OF SCHEDULE BP 1II 0 III TOTAL 1III 0 2 TAX PAYABLE ON (1)(III) ABOVE ON AVERAGE RATE O F TAX 2 0 3 STT PAID DURING THE YEAR ON THE TRANSACTIONS CHAR GEABLE TO STT WHICH HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO IN THE COURSE OF B USINESS DURING THE YEAR 3 0 4 REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E, LOWER OF (2) AND (3) 4 0 10. THUS, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE MENTIONE D THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGEABLE TO SECU RITIES TRANSACTION TAX CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AN D GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOM E IS NIL, TAX PAYABLE ON THE ABOVE INCOME AT AVERAGE RATE OF TAX IS NIL AND, THEREFORE, THE REBATE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 88E I S NIL. THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALSO, THERE IS NO WHISPER ABOUT ANY INCOME ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. THAT WHEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES T RANSACTION TAX IS NIL AND THE REBATE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 88E IS NI L, THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY E RROR IN THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) IN NOT ALLOWING REB ATE UNDER SECTION 88E. THAT UNDER SECTION 154, THE JURISDICTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. UN DER SECTION 143(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCESSED THE RETURN AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE IS TO BE SEEN IN THE LI GHT OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED ANY MISTAKE IN FILLING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME CAN NOT BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154. THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT THE STT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILLED IN THE WRONG COL UMN, I.E., IN THE COLUMN OF TDS. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FROM THE DETA ILS AS FURNISHED IN ITA-2162/DEL/2013 8 THE COLUMN OF TDS, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT IT IS STT. MOREOVER, AS WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 88E, MERE PAYMENT OF STT WOULD NOT ENTIT LE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE REBATE. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RE BATE ONLY IF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THE INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSACT IONS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX TO BE NIL. I N THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALSO, THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT ANY SUCH IN COME. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED THE CERTIFICATE O F STT COLLECTED BY ADROIT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD. HOWEVER, THE CERTIFICATE ONLY MENTIONS THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE BU T IT NOWHERE MENTIONS THE INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTION. 11. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE INTIMATION UNDER SEC TION 143(1) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MISTAKE, IF ANY, IN FILLING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1 ). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAM G LOBAL SECURITIES LTD. VIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.214/2013. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT THA N THE FACTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE. IN THAT CASE, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE HAD FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION MAKING CORRECT CLAIM. THE SAME WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE REVISED RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(5). ON T HE ABOVE FACTS, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REMANDED THE MATTE R TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFEREN T. IN THIS CASE, THE ITA-2162/DEL/2013 9 ASSESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE INTIMATION SENT UNDE R SECTION 143(1). AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS IN DETAIL, WE HA VE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE INTIMATION SENT BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1). THE MISTAKE, IF ANY, WAS IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 154 CANNOT BE UTILIZED FOR RECTIFYING THE ASSESSEES MISTAKE IN FILLING OF THE RETURN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 25.10.2013 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL (INDL.), SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL (INDL.), SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL (INDL.), SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGGRAWAL (INDL.), 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL SARABHAI, 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL SARABHAI, 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL SARABHAI, 12/3, ABOVE AMBALAL SARABHAI, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 2. RESPONDENT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -30(1), NEW DELHI. 30(1), NEW DELHI. 30(1), NEW DELHI. 30(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR