These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dt. 21st Oct., 2011 of the learned CIT(A), Jodhpur.
2. First we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 442/Jd/2011. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:
"I. The order under appeal dt. 21st Oct., 2011 oflearned CIT(A), Jodhpur is bad in law and bad in facts. It deserves to be quashed by allowing the appeal.
2. That the learned CIT(A) in the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in law and in facts, in upholding the action of learned AO in rejecting the application under s. 154 of the Act. The same ought not to have been upheld by him. The Hon'ble Tribunal may very kindly allow the same.
3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the position of law as regards to filing of revised return after the prescribed period and such claim of relief was to be made in revised return, could be raised thereafter in the appellate forums only in the light of the Goetz India's case.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact and position of law that the computer prepared paperless return of income was mandatorily required to be filed, and that too, was or could only be prepared on the computer and in small towns, this facility in an efficient manner was hardly available, in such circumstances if any ,apparent/inadvertent error took place in placing/filling the figures in the columns of return, the appellant or any other assessee, remains fully handicapped. In such circumstances in view of the other figures of refund and rebate available in S. No.9, at page No. I, and S. Nos. 7 and 13 at page No. 9 of return showing/claiming tax relief from the tax determined in the return are essentially to be verified, compared and allowed in view of the other related figures available, in case a claim is denied under s. 143(1).
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in giving finding by overlooking the fact and mandates of the circular and judicial pronouncement etc., cited before him, that the learned AO correctly processed the return, assessed the demand and rejected the claim under s. 154 as per statutory provisions. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding so.
6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute, amend or delete the grounds hereinabove taken on or before the hearing.
7. The appellant, therefore, most respectfully prays that his appeal may kindly be allowed by directing the learned AO to allow the tax relief claimed on agricultural income claimed."
3. From the above grounds, it is noted that only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the rejection of application under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short).
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31st July, 2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,78,690. The AO noticed that in the return, the agricultural income was shown as nil and a relief in term of ss. 88B/88C of the Act had been allowed at Rs. 13,000 through the intimation under s. 143(1) of the Act.
The assessee moved an application under s. 154 of the Act stating therein that total income declared at Rs. 3,78,687 included agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 2,08,284 and balance income amounting to Rs. 1,64,915 was business income and Rs. 5.487 as other income. The AO rejected the application of the assessee by stating that there was no order in this case which could be rectified in terms of the provision of s. 154 of the Act and the return of income filed by the assessee was simply processed under s. 143( I) of the Act and there was no apparent mistake so far as the intimation is concerned.
5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and submitted that this was not at all a case where it could be said that the assessee had sought a review of the order, but it was simple request under s. 154 of the Act for rectification of a patent mistake on record which included a mistake apparent from the record. It was further stated that in this case any agricultural income which was erroneously/inadvertently mentioned under the head expenses debited in the P&L a/ c against the exempt income wherein neither positive nor negative income of this nature appeared. It was so because no exempt income was appearing in the books of the assessee. It was contended that the relevant papers relating to agricultural income were available with the return of· income, but for the year under consideration, the return filed was paperless return, so the assessee could not furnish the relevant papers with the return of income, but the AO in the intimation under s. 143(1) of the Act erroneously j inadvertently mentioned under the head expenses debited in the P&L ajc against the exempt income. Therefore, the assessee filed the application for rectification under s. 154 of the Act.
6. The learned CIT(A). after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that for any wrong claim or showing in wrong head, the Act provides remedy to the assessee to file a revised return of income. but the assessee had failed to do so and a mistake could not be rectified under s. 154 of the Act. He, therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. us. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that since the mistake was apparent from record. the learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to correct the same. He requested that matter may be sent back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Learned Departmental Representative did not object if the matter is sent back to the learned CIT(A).
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, this issue is set aside and remitted back to. the file of the learned CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
9. As regard to the appeal in ITA No. 441/Jd/2013, learned counsel for the assessee has given in writing on the order sheet as under:
"This appeal is withdrawn Sd/ - X10C<X"
In that view of the above, the appeal in ITA No. 441/Jd/2011 is dismissed as withdrawn.
10. In the result. appeal in ITA No. 442/Jd/2011 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 441/J d/2011 is dismissed as withdrawn .