IN INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1077/Chny/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Raj Match Works, Deputy Commissioner of No. 4, Geethalaya Building, Vs. Income Tax, Shanmugam Road, Sivakasi. Circle 1, Virudhunagar. [PAN:AAFFT4006N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri K.V. Raman, C.A. /Respondent by : Shri Balina Suresh Babu, JCIT Date of hearing : 18.07.2019 /Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2019 ORDER PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai, dated 04.03.2019 relevant to assessment year 2009-10. In grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged order of ld. CIT(A) on dismissing appeal on technical ground of filing of electronic revised return in ITR 5 was beyond time allowed for considering claim of depreciation. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee is partnership firm and filed e-return of income declaring total income of .5,20,537, which 2 I.T.A. No. 1077/Chny/19 includes depreciation on assets claimed for period from 01.08.2008 to 31.03.2009 during which assessee carried on business as partnership firm. While processing return, CPC disallowed depreciation claimed for 8 months. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal by holding that CPC has not committed any error in processing return. 3. On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that when revised ITR in Form ITR-V dated 01.11.2016 was accepted by Department, disallowing claim of depreciation on ground that revised return in ITR V is time barred is not correct while said valid return was processed under section 143(1) of Act and prayed directing Assessing Officer to allow claim of assessee by filing copy of judgement in case of Sree Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. v. CIT in TCA No. 471 of 2006 dated 11.09.2012. On other hand, ld. DR supported order passed by ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both sides, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of authorities below including paper book. In para 6 of appellate order, ld. CIT(A) has observed that valid revised return filed by assessee was processed under section 143(1) of Act by CPC, wherein, CPC has, based on values 3 I.T.A. No. 1077/Chny/19 reflected in appropriate paras, disallowed claim of depreciation which was apparently not filed in required para of said original ITR, which was revised and held that CPC has not committed any error while processing return under section 143(1) of Act. Just because assessee has not filed claim in required para of original return, any claim of assessee cannot be rejected out rightly. E-filing of return was mandated since last three-four years only and Department cannot expect each and every citizen should fill columns without mistake. omission/commission is human error, which could be rectified subsequently. In para 7 of appellate order, ld. CIT(A) has stated that filing of electronic revised return in ITR-V on 01.11.2016 was beyond time allowed vide circular 13/2016 and if it is so, how CPC has processed time barred revised return under section 143(1) of Act. It is not case of Department that assessee has filed belated return. In this case, assessee has filed its original return of income on 25.09.2009, well within time prescribed under section 139(1) of Act, whereas, CPC processed return and sent intimation dated 03.10.2016, wherein income retuned was enhanced and demand of .1,58,967/-, which is clearly barred by limitation under section 143(1) of Act. When department insisted for e-verification and allowed extension of e-verifying, assessee has e-verified and sent ITR-V to CPC. While submitting 4 I.T.A. No. 1077/Chny/19 copy of revised ITR in Form ITR-V, assessee noticed that depreciation value was wrongly entered in schedule DEP as .3,87,644/- instead of .2,58,557/-, which was shown under para 12(ii) of Schedule BP and sought for remedy from first appellate authority, which was denied. As has been held by various courts, legitimate claim which is otherwise eligible to assessee, should not be deprived of, we set aside order of ld. CIT(A) and remit matter back to file of Assessing Officer to examine with regard to eligibility of depreciation claimed by assessee in accordance with law after allowing opportunity of being heard to assessee and allow claim, if eligible. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th September, 2019 in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.09.2019 Copy to: 1. Appellant, 2. Respondent, 3. (CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5.DR & 6. GF. Raj Match Works v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Virudhunagar