RJ Architects P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 850/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8636 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MURUGABHOOPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 154; 15

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B / SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.850/MDS/2016 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S RJ ARCHITECTS P LTD., C/O S. SRIDHAR, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5, 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AADCR 5572 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), CHENNAI - 600 034. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MURUGABHOOPATHY, ADDL. CIT - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2016 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, CHENNAI, DATED 16.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.850/MDS/16 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT') BY CPC. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONS IDERED A PROVISION FOR TAXATION OF ` 3,30,000/- AS AN ITEM OF ADMISSIBLE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE TAXABLE INCOME. ONLY BY OVERSIGHT THE PROFIT OF ` 6,63,607/- WAS SHOWN AT INAPPROPRIATE COLUMN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ENTERTAINED THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 15 4 OF THE ACT TO RECTIFY AN ERROR / MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3. I HEARD SHRI MURUGABHOOPATHY, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT BY OVERSIGHT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE PROFIT AT ` 6,63,607/- AFTER ADDING BACK A SUM OF ` 3,30,000/- BEING THE PROVISION DEBITED IN THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., SINCE THERE WAS BONAFIDE ERROR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3 I.T.A. NO.850/MDS/16 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ALL THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THEREAFTER THE CPC REJECTED THE A PPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ONLY ARITHMETIC ERROR MAY BE ALLOWED IN A PROCEEDING UND ER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, ONLY A PRIMA FACIE ERROR, WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD, CA N BE RECTIFIED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT BY OVERSIGHT, THE ASS ESSEE INDICATED THE PROFIT OF ` 6,63,607/- IN THE INAPPROPRIATE COLUMN IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS FACT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER AD DING BACK ` 3,30,000/- BEING THE PROVISION FOR INCOME-TAX DEBITED IN THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE CPC HAS TAKEN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF ` 9,05,308/- WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT ADDING THE PROVISION OF INCOME-TAX OF ` 3,30,000/-. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A CONFUSION WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAS DECLARED ` 6,63,607/- AS CLAIMED OR ` 3,30,000/-. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH WAS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT DECLARED THE INCOME AT ` 10,18,551/-. SINCE THESE ARE ALL ARITHMETIC ERROR, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION 4 I.T.A. NO.850/MDS/16 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO LOOK INTO IT. AC CORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL GO THROUGH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASCERT AIN WHETHER THE INCOME WAS RIGHTLY DECLARED AT THE APPROPRIATE COLU MN IN THE RETURN. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS INADVERTENTLY DECLA RED INCOME IN THE INAPPROPRIATE COLUMN THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AD VANTAGE BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL LOOK INTO T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AS SESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE INCOME WAS SHOWN IN INAPPROPRIATE COLUMN B Y OVERSIGHT, THIS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 I.T.A. NO.850/MDS/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 18 TH AUGUST, 2016. KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CHENNAI-5, CHENNAI 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.