Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi V. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-6, Jhansi

ITA 73/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0682 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K AGARWAL; RAHUL AGARWAL S
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revised return
• Section: 143(1); 54; 90; 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 73/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. THE DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME. TAX, COMMISSIONERY COMPOUND, CIRCLE 6, JHANSI . JHANSI (PAN AAALJ0068K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. AGARWAL & SHRI RAHUL AGARWAL, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A), AGRA II DATED 01.02.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10, CHALLENG ING THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 2 2. THE A.O. NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT ON TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.3,41,73,652/- DATED 20.08.2010 RAISING A DEMAND TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,23, 46,680/- WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST. ON RECEIPT OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 14 3(1), ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT STATING TH E COLUMN NO.24 (PART B- COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME) HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK AL THOUGH INFORMATION OF EXEMPTED INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN SCHEDULE F3(II)/ F3(IX) OF THE RETURN. AS A RESULT, THE ENTIRE INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPTED AS PER SCHEDULE F(IX) HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY SHOWN AS TAXABLE. THE A.O. FOUND THE ISSUE TO BE COMPLICATED, THEREFORE, REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE ADDITIONAL CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -6, JHANSI UNDER SECTION 144A OF THE I.T. ACT FOR DIRECTIONS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, JHA NSI HAS DIRECTED THAT THERE ARE TWO OPINIONS ON THE ISSUE I.E. ONE IS OF ASSESS EES COUNSEL AND OTHER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE FACE OF RECORD. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE HAS DECIDED THAT IF ON ANY POINT, THERE ARE TWO OPINIONS, THE RECTIFICATIO N UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DONE. THE A.O. FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS OF AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I .T. ACT, REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 3 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT DUE TO MISTAKE IN PREPARATION OF THE RETURN, THE EXEMPT INCOME COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD TO PART- B OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE RETURN. THE A SSESSEE ON REALISING THE MISTAKE ON RECEIPT OF INTIMATION, FILED IMMEDIATELY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) W.E.F. 01.04.2008 THE ARITHMETIC ERROR IN THE RETURN OR IN CORRECT CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADJUSTMENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVE R, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 2.2 AND 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 2.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED I N SCHEDULE F3 (II) THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME AS RS.3,41,73,652/- BUT IN PART B(A) COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AT SL. NO.26 I.E. TOTAL INCOME THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,41,73,652/- WAS INSERTED AND NOT AT COLUMN NO.24 I.E. WHICH IS FOR EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF TO TAL INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN. EVEN IF IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN TAKEN ERRONEOUSLY AT THE SAID FIGURE BY THE AP PELLANT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO HAD ANY MEANS TO EXAMINE SUCH ERROR WH ILE DEALING WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF PRO CESSING THE RETURN. IT ALSO CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE RETURN HAS BEEN D ULY VERIFIED & SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT. HAVING SO PROCESSED THE RE TURN, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE DONE ANY RECTIFICATION THEREIN AS THE MATT ER WAS INDEED NOT ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 4 WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 154 OF THE I.T.ACT. RELI ANCE IS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI IN ANSHUAL SINGHAL VS ACIT [32 DTR 131], FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SINCE AO HAD NO POWE R TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1), PROVISION OF SEC.154 CANNOT LEGALLY THE APPLIED TO MAKE SUCH ADJ USTMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS UPHELD. 3. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT COLUMN NO.24 O F PART-B OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR EXEMPT INCOME HAD BEEN LEFT BLANK INADVERTENTLY AND ENTIRE INCOME OF RS.3,41,73,652/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS TAXABLE. HOWEVER , IN SCHEDULE-F, THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED DEDUCTABLE INCOME OF THE SAM E AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT CARRIED FORWARD APPROPRIATELY. THEREFORE, IT IS A M ISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND ENTIRE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY A.O., WHILE PROCESSING RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1), AS EXEMPT INCOME. HE HAS RELIED UPO N THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF SUM TOTAL SYSTEMS INDIA (P .) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 145 TTJ 530 (HYD.) IN W HICH ON FINDING MISTAKE TO BE ARITHMETIC IN NATURE, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. HE HAS HOWEVER SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO A RITHMETIC ERROR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THERE IS AN INCORRECT CLAIM BY ASSESSE E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 5 PER EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 143(1) OF THE A CT, THEREFORE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, ON DEBATABLE ISSUE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 HAS BEEN RIGHTL Y REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER :- 143.[(1) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, S UCH RETURN SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AFT ER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM I S APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN; (B) THE TAX AND INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTE D ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A); (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DU E TO, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAX AND INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) BY ANY TAX DEDUCTED AT SO URCE, ANY TAX ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 6 COLLECTED AT SOURCE, ANY ADVANCE TAX PAID, ANY RELI EF ALLOWABLE UNDER AN AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 90 OR SECTION 90A, OR AN Y RELIEF ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 91, ANY REBATE ALLOWABLE UNDER PART A OF CHAPTER VIII, ANY TAX PAID ON SELF-ASSESSMENT AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED A ND SENT TO THE ASSESSEE SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE ASSESSEE UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN PU RSUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE: PROVIDED THAT AN INTIMATION SHALL ALSO BE SENT TO THE ASSESS EE IN A CASE WHERE THE LOSS DECLARED IN THE RETURN BY THE ASSESS EE IS ADJUSTED BUT NO TAX OR INTEREST IS PAYABLE BY, OR NO REFUND IS D UE TO, HIM: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF T HE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS MADE. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, (A) 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE RETURN' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN TH E RETURN, (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHE R ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH RETURN; (II) IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER THIS ACT TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH ENTRY HAS NOT BEEN SO FURNISHED; OR (III) IN RESPECT OF A DEDUCTION, WHERE SUCH DEDUCTI ON EXCEEDS SPECIFIED STATUTORY LIMIT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED AS MO NETARY AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE OR RATIO OR FRACTION; (B) THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN SHALL BE DEE MED TO BE THE INTIMATION IN A CASE WHERE NO SUM IS PAYABLE BY, OR REFUNDABLE TO, THE ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 7 ASSESSEE UNDER CLAUSE (C), AND WHERE NO ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER CLAUSE (A). 6.1 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALA RAM, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY VS. VOLKART BROT HERS AND OTHERS (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) HELD AS UNDER :- A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOU S AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 6.2 HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HI NDUSTAN LIVER LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHER S [2006] 284 ITR 42 (CAL) HELD AS UNDER :- SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, CLEARLY STATES THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH RECTIF ICATION CAN BE MADE. A MISTAKE MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS, MEANING THEREBY NO EXTERNAL HELP EITHER ON FACT OR IN LAW I S REQUIRED TO DETECT SUCH MISTAKE. THE MISTAKE MUST BE SO OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN EASILY BE CORRECTED, TO WIT AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE , A WRONG QUOTATION OF SECTION, ETC. THE QUESTION WHETHER INT ERPRETATION OF A PROVISION OF LAW IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS PER SE A DEBA TABLE ISSUE. THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY THE OFFICIAL HAVING CO- ORDINATE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AS IT COU LD NOT BE TERMED TO BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 8 6.3 HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA, HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERA TION LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 173 TAXMAN 15 HEL D AS UNDER :- OMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON ACCO UNT OF PAYMENT OF THE ARREARS OF SALARY TO ITS EMPLOYEES I N THE RETURN OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THEREFORE S. 154 CANNO T BE APPLIED. 6.4 ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUDHIR KU MAR SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITA NO. 172 OF 2012 FOR A.Y.200 8-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARAS 4 & 5 HELD A S UNDER :- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SECTION 143(1)(A) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE RETURN HAS BEEN MADE U/S. 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S. 142(1), SUCH RETURN SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLO WING MANNER : (A) THE INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKI NG FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; (II) THE INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHOWING TOTAL NET INCO ME AT RS.4,14,270/- AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS VERI FIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPENDING HIS SIGNATURE TO SUCH STATEM ENT. THE AO PROCESSED THIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 143(1) ACCEPTI NG THE RETURNED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,14,270/-. AS PER THE ABOVE PRO VISIONS CONTAINED U/S. 143(1)(A), IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO PROCE SS THE RETURN OF INCOME AS IT IS AT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE. THERE WAS NO ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 9 ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NO I NCORRECT CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE. WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM I N APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE SHOULD BE REVISED BY ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT MAK E ANY SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAI M OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPLICATION U/S . 154 OF THE IT ACT. IN SCHEDULE-E OF THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT C LARIFIED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE AO TO PROBE THE FACTS FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE PROCESSING TH E RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 143(1). SINCE, NO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AO ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE REVE NUE DEPARTMENT. THUS, RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S. 15 4 WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM. IT APPEARS TO BE A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED REMEDY BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY SUCH STEP IN THE MATTER. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 6.5 CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTI ON 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 10 6.6. ACCORDING TO SECTION 143(1)(A), THE A.O. COUL D MAKE ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME NAMELY :- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPA RENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN; 6.7 THE EXPLANATION TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PROVID ES THE DEFINITION OF INCORRECT CLAIM MEAN A CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF AN E NTRY IN THE RETURN OR OF AN ITEM WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OR IN RESP ECT OF WHICH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER THIS ACT TO SUBSTANT IATE SUCH ENTRY HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED OR IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION, WHERE SUCH DE DUCTION EXCEEDS SPECIFIED STATUTORY LIMIT. 6.8 THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHOWING TOTAL NET INCO ME AT RS.3,41,73,652/- AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALSO SAME INCOME HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.24 OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME (PAR T-B) DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. SUCH COMPUTA TION OF INCOME IS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPENDING SIGNATURE TO SUCH STAT EMENT. THE A.O. PROCESSED ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 11 THIS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE A CT ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,41,73,652/-. AS PER THE PROVISIONS C ONTAINED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A), IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE A.O. TO PROCESS THE RETURN OF INCOME AS IT IS AT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO A RITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS ALSO ADMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS INCORRECT CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH SUBMISSION O F LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CASE OF INCORRECT CLAI M MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE ASSESSEE OMITTED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OF INCO ME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS A MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT MAKING CLAIM OF EXEMPT INCOME IN RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. HAS NO POWER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT TO CORRECT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIRECTI ON OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANSI HAVE NOT BEEN DI SPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THERE IS NO INCONSISTENT ENTRY I N THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS NO CASE OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION WHICH EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED STATUTORY LIMIT. IT IS A CASE OF OMISSION TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 12 INCORRECT CLAIM AS IS MENTIONED IN SECTION 143(1) (A) OF THE ACT READ WITH ITS EXPLANATION. 6.9 FURTHER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IN SCHEDULE- F-3(IX) THOUGH EXEMPT INCOME IS MENTIONED BUT NO CLAIM IS MADE IN COMPUTA TION OF TOTAL INCOME. SUCH A CLAIM OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THERE IS NO AUTHENTICITY OF SCHEDULE-F UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE TH E COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN PART-B SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION WHICH ASSESSEE HAS VERIFIED TO BE CORRECT INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS VERIFIED THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.3,41,73,652/- TO BE CORRECT AND COMPLETE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY WITHDRAWAL FROM SUCH STATEMENT. SCHEDULE-F IS NOT S UBJECT TO ANY VERIFICATION THEREFORE, AS AGAINST UNVERIFIED STATEMENT IN SCHED ULE-F, THE PREFERENCE TO VERIFIED STATEMENT ON OATH SHALL HAVE TO BE GIVEN P RECEDENTS AND PREFERENCE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASS ESSEE THAT ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF EXEMPT INCOME IN SCHEDULE-F CANNOT BE ACCE PTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM IN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REVISED AND THE A. O. SHOULD HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXEMPT, HOWEVER, THE A .O. HAS NO SUCH POWER TO MAKE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE BY MAKING A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 13 REASONING. SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS ALS O VERIFIED TO BE CORRECT INCOME AND THE DEDUCTION OF EXEMPT INCOME IS CLAIME D IN THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A DUTY OF THE A.O. TO PROBE THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PROCESSING THE RETUR N OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1). SINCE NO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF EXEMPT INCOM E HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND A.O. ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY ASSESSEE AS IT IS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THUS, THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 1 54 WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT APPEARS TO BE A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN SUCH CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED REMEDY TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY SUCH STEP IN THE MATTER. 6.10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUM TOTAL SYSTEMS IN DIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE SHORT POINT UNDER APPEAL IS ONLY WHETHER THE ERRONEOUS DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INC OME ON LINE FOR WHICH IT HAS RECEIVED SECTION 143(1) INTIMATION CAN BE RECTIFIED BY A PETITION UNDER SECTION 154. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THE SAME AS A MISTAKE ARITH METICAL IN NATURE AND ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 14 ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO ARITHMETICAL ERROR. THEREFORE, AFORESAID DECISION O F HYDERABAD BENCH WILL NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY ITA NO.73/AGRA/2013 A.YS.2009-10 15