ITO, Ward- 2(2), Bhavnagar V. Umaben Seetharam Gannavaram, Bhavnagar

ITA 3414/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6235 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 10AA; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3414/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ITO, WARD-2(2), BHAVNAGAR APPELLANT VS. UMABEN SEETHARAM GANNAVARAM 221, MADHAV DARSHAN, WAGHAWADI ROAD, BHAVNAGAR PIN-364002 RE SPONDENT PAN: ACXPG6601L /BY REVENUE : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 23.09.2015 IN CAS E NO. CIT(A)-6/300/14-15, ACCEPTING ASSESSEES RECTIFICATION PETITION THEREBY HOLDING ENTITLED FOR SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.154 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. WE ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO TH E ABOVE SOLE ISSUE OF SECTION 10AA DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 3 0.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.6,30,200/-. THE SAME STOOD PROCESSED BY THE CPC U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT ITA NO. 3414/AHD/15 [ITO VS. UMABEN SEETHARAM GANN AVARAM] A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 - ASSESSING THE ABOVE INCOE AT RS.1,38,73,510/- WITHO UT ALLOWING ITS DEDUCTION CLAIM U/S.10AA OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.75,73,309/-. T HE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION ON 28.11.2014 CLAIMING T HE ABOVE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE SAME IN HIS ORDER DA TED 01.12.2014 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ABOVE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION WAS NOT AN APPAR ENT MISTAKE ON RECORD RECTIFIABLE U/S.154 OF THE ACT SINCE THERE WAS NO E VIDENCE ON RECORD SUPPORTING SECTION 10AA CLAIM. 3. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTS THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS IN H IS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REIFICATION ORD ER U/S. 154 AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.Y.2009-10 IS THE SECOND YEAR OF OPERATION. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.10AA IN FIRST YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2007-08 AND THE A.O. ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.10AA IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT EVEN IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y. 2 009-10 THE DEDUCTION U/S 10AA WAS ALSO ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN A.Y. 2008- 09 THE A.O. HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE RECTIFI CATION APPLICATION AND REFUSED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE COMMITTED IN FILING THE RETURN. 6.1 THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THESE CASE LAWS. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF SHR IKANT REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD. 26 TAXMANN.COM 265, THE MUMBAI ITAT HAS HELD THAT IF A NY CLERICAL MISTAKE THEREIN E- RETURN IN A.Y. 2008-09, THE SAME IS RECTIFIABLE U/S . 154 OF THE ACT. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT DUE TO NEW LAUNCHED SOFTWARE OF E-FILING THE MISTAKES WHICH WERE BOUND TO HAPPENED WHILE FILING OF E-RETURN OF INCOME. BESIDES THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA IN PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA RS ALSO THUS THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ENTERTAININ G ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.10AA OF THE ACT IN ABSENCE OF REVISED RETURN AS PER HONBLE APEX COURTS JUDGMENT IN GOETZE INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC ). WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION IN PREC EDING AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. SHE HAS ALSO SUCCESSFULLY MADE O UT ITS CASE THAT VARIOUS MISTAKES HAD OCCURRED DUE TO THE NEWLY LAUNCHED SOF TWARE. LEARNED COUNSEL TAKES US TO ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING LOWER APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ITA NO. 3414/AHD/15 [ITO VS. UMABEN SEETHARAM GANN AVARAM] A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 - CLAIM IN QUESTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT HAD BEEN INC ORRECTLY ENTERED TO BE UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. ALL THESE CRUCIAL FACTS HA VE GONE UNREBUTTED FROM REVENUES END. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE FACTS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS LOWER APPELLATE JURISDICTION ACCEPTIN G ASSESSEES RECTIFICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT. 5. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12/01/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0