sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
 Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
  In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (ITAT Mumbai)

Dr. Jitesh Hiralal Desai,403, Monte Rossa,90Ft. Road, Above SBI,Opp. Ganesh Mandir,Ghatkopar (E),Mumbai 400 020 Vs. C.I.T. (A)-3,R. No.440,Aayakar Bhavan,Old CGO Building,M.K. Road,Mumbai - 400020
November, 03rd 2014
                        MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI


                                  ITA No. 5010/M/2012
                                Assessment Year: 2008-09

         Dr. Jitesh Hiralal Desai,              C.I.T. (A)-3,
         403, Monte Rossa,                      R. No.440,
         90Ft. Road, Above SBI,                 Aayakar Bhavan,
         Opp. Ganesh Mandir,                    Old CGO Building,
         Ghatkopar (E),                         M.K. Road,
         Mumbai ­ 400 020                       Mumbai - 400020
         PAN: AABPD9785A
               (Appellant)                          (Respondent)

      Assessee by                    : Shri V.H. Jariwala, A.R.
      Revenue by                     : Shri Mohammed Rizwan, D.R.

      Date of Hearing                : 21.08.2014
      Date of Pronouncement          : 29.10.2014


Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

      The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated
25.05.12 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred
to as CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09 vide which the ld. CIT(A)
has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the
AO) dismissing the application of the assessee under section 154 of the Income
Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').

2.    The facts in brief are that the assessee vide his applications dated
03.12.10 and further dated 09.1210 submitted before the AO that he had
claimed depreciation of Rs.2,04,623/- but due to software error the same could
not be claimed in the original return of income. The AO, however, rejected the
                                                                     ITA No. 5010/M/2012
                                       2                             Dr. Jitesh Hiralal Desai

contention of the assessee holding that the assessee should have filed the
revised return of income within the stipulated time for the claim of
depreciation. The said depreciation claim could not be granted to the assessee
under section 154 of the Act.

3.    In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee had not claimed the
said depreciation in the return of income and even had failed to file the revised
return. He therefore upheld the order of the AO dismissing the application of
the assessee moved under section 154 of the Act. The assessee is thus in
appeal before us.

4.    The ld. A.R. of the assessee, before us, has submitted that the said claim
of depreciation could not be claimed in the original return of income due to
error in software.   The particulars of depreciation in respect of computer,
furniture and car amounting to Rs.92,859/- and further ventilator and colour
doppler amounting to Rs.1,11,764/- in respect of proprietary concern i.e.
hospital of the assessee could not be considered. He has further submitted that
the above claim could not be made in the original return of income due to
software error and which amounts to a bonafide mistake on the part of the
On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has relied upon the findings of the lower

5.    We have considered the rival submissions. We may find that it is not a
case where the lower authorities have held that the assessee had filed a wrong
claim or that he is not entitled to claim the depreciation in question. The lower
authorities have rejected the application of the assessee only on the ground that
the assessee should have claimed the same by way of filing a revised return. In
our view, it is not a case where the assessee has made a new claim rather, the
                                                                        ITA No. 5010/M/2012
                                           3                            Dr. Jitesh Hiralal Desai

case of the assessee is that the claim could not be entered in the e-return due to
software error. When faced with almost similar facts and circumstances, the
co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shrikant Real Estates (P.) Ltd.
vs. ITO (2012) 26 265 (Mumbai Trib.) has held that in the
present system of e-filing of return which is totally dependent upon usage of
software, it is possible that some clerical errors may occur at the time of
entering the data in the electronic form. The return is prepared electronically
which is converted into an XML file either through the free downloaded
software provided by CBDT or by the software available in the market. In
either of the case, there is every possibility of entering incorrect data without
the expert knowledge of preparing an XML file.

6.       Under such circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has
directed the AO to make the rectifications and allow the eligible claim of the
assessee. Respectfully, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the
Tribunal (supra), we direct the AO to consider the claim of the assessee and
allow the same, if otherwise eligible, after proper verification.

7.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

                  Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2014.

          Sd/-                                                Sd/-
    (R.C. Sharma)                                        (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 29.10.2014.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
                                                                   ITA No. 5010/M/2012
                                            4                      Dr. Jitesh Hiralal Desai

        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//                           [

                                                By Order

                              Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Development Software Programming Software Engineering Custom Software Development Requirement Based Software Development Software Solutions Software Serv

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions