AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ “एकल सद�यीय’, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH �ीमती �दवा �संह, �या�यक सद�य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1089/CHD/2019 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Amrik Singh Bhullar, The ITO, बनाम S/o Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Ward, VS St. No. 2, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur. Sangrur. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AHPPB9630D अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : None (Adjournment application of Shri Sanket Singla, Advocate) राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT : 04.03.2021 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex आदेश/ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 14.05.2019 of CIT(A), Patiala pertaining to 2015-16 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including ground No. 1, 2 and 7 which read as under :

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 2 of 16 6. xxx 7. That the worthy A.O has failed to appreciate the facts that the order passed by the Worthy Assessing officer, Sangrur is barred by limitation as the appellant filed an application for rectification on 01-12-2017 through e-portal which was transferred to the concerned A.O. on 05-12-2017 which was to be decided within six months as per section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on

merits.

moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support

thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR

addressing the aforesaid grounds was required to point out from

the order whether the assessee can be said to have been heard

before the passing of the order as violation of principles of

natural justice have been pleaded by the assessee-appellant.

assessee extracted in para 4.5 of the impugned order. Referring

to these, it was submitted that the assessee appears to have been

heard as submissions extracted can be said to have been

considered as possibly that was the only argument of the

assessee. Accordingly, it was her submission that the assessee

for all intents and purposes can be said to have been heard.

present case the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,24,800/-

from the ‘business and profession’ and in the year under

consideration declared a total income of Rs. 18,91,963/- after

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 3 of 16

deductions under Chapter VI-A. Total tax and interest of Rs.

3,83,065/- was paid. The said return was processed u/s 143(1)

of the Income Tax Act,10961 on 09.05.2017 and regular demand

of Rs. 3,45,500/- was raised after charging of interest u/s 234A,

234B and 234C as due date for filing of return for the year under

consideration was 07.09.2015. Thereafter, the assessee filed an

application u/s 154 seeking rectification stating that in the

Financial Year, the assessee had received an amount of Rs.

27,73,603/- ( including interest amount of Rs. 3,14,385/-) on

account of compulsory acquisition of land by the Government. A

prayer for rectification was made relying upon Circular issued by

CBDT to put in assessee's words, it was submitted: the Circular of CBDT

along with original ITR and computation for the A.Y. 2015-16 as well as rectified computation of income and proof of payment for compensation made by the District Magistrate (SDM)-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Sangrur for consideration and necessary action. The specific compensation received by the assessee as available in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act was shown to be as under :

“During the year under consideration, the assessee had received compensation for compulsory acquisition of his Agriculture and Commercial Land as under:-

Sr. Certificate's No. Nature of Land Date of Receipt of Total TDS Net & Date compensation Deducted No Compensation Compensation (Rs.) (Rs.) . received (Rs.) 1. Agriculture 10.02.2015 4,21,173/- 2,68,676/- 401 09.02.2016 2. Commercial 10.02.2015 21,07,686/- 401 2,10,769/- 18,96,917/- 09.02.2016 2,44,744/- 24,474/- 2,20,270/-

Note:- As per certificate from the O/o the Collector Land Aqquisition-cum-S.D.M. Sangrur, the said Agriculture and Commertial Land had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for Road No.NH-64 and vide the Notification No.S.O.42/C.A.2/1899/S.9/2/2008 Dated 09.02.2008 of the Punjab Govt., the amount equilent to this Award of compensation for purchase of land will be exempted from Stamp Duty and Registration Charges.

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 4 of 16

5.1 Accordingly, the following rectification in the order vis-à-vis

the original computation was prayed for :

Particulars Rectified Computation Original ITR & Computation Sr. No. 1. Assessment Year 2015-16 2015-16 2. No Revised Return filed by the Original (filed on 23-03-2017) assessee. 3. Rs. 1,24,800/- Rs. 1,24,800/- Income from Business and Profession 4. Income from Capital gain Rs.18,91,963/- - LTCG 5. Income from other sources Rs.1,81,488/- Rs.7,415/- 6. Gross Total Income Rs.20,16,763/- Rs. 1,32,220/- 7. Deductions(Chapter Vl-A) Rs. 1,24,800/- - 8. Net Total Income Rs.18,91,963/- Rs. 1,32,220/-

5.2 However, the said request and prayer did not find favour

with the AO who held that the assessee intends his case to be

decided as per the particulars which were not shown in the

return of income.

Appellate Authority where the written submissions extracted in

the order also did not find favour with the First Appellate

Authority.

principles of natural justice and equity.

7.1. The record has been considered. Since the grievance

appeared maintainable, accordingly, rejecting the adjournment

application, the ld. Sr.DR was heard. The appeal, accordingly is

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 5 of 16

being decided ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits

wherein the ld. DR relied on the order.

appeal, the assessee further challenged the order passed u/s 154

on merits as well as on the maintainability of the order itself.

The order passed was also assailed on the grounds of limitation

and consequent jurisdiction.

jurisdictional challenge wherein submissions of the assessee

have been extracted has been addressed in paras 3 to 4 at

pages 1 to 6 of the order and rejection of the same are set

out in para 5 at page 6 and 7. Thereafter, the decision on

merits has been taken. The discussion on merits is being

refrained from as it would come into play only if the decision

on jurisdiction is upheld. The relevant finding of the AO is

reproduced hereunder :

“3. Further, perusal of the rectification application filed u/s 154 shows that it has not -i signed by the assessee but by Sh. Parveen Bansal, Advocate. Section 154(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the authority concerned shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice "by the assessee ". In the present case, the assessee himself has not brought any mistake to the notice of the Assessing Officer. A representative can represent the assessee but he cannot substitute the assessee for all intent and purpose. Since, it is an admitted fact that the assessee himself has not filed a rectification application u/s 154, rectification application filed by Sh. Parveen Bansal, Advocate or the representative of the assessee in the present ease is incompetent and therefore non-est in the eyes of law. The said rectification application filed u/s 154 is liable to be rejected for this reason also. (Support taken from the Case Law: (Smt. Jangir Kaur, Ambala City vs Assessee in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: 'A' Bench: Chandigarh before Shri H.L.Karwa, VP and Shri D.K. Srivastava, AM in IT A No. 908/ Chd/2011, Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 26- 12-2011.)”

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 6 of 16

9.1 On a consideration of the record and in the light of the

aforementioned grounds which have been extracted, it is

evident that the assessee had challenged the order passed

upholding the jurisdiction of the AO despite the alleged

violation of the statutory time line etc. In the facts of the

present case, it can be seen that the order passed u/s 154

was to be passed on or before 30.06.2018 and as per record,

has been passed on 09.11.2019. The relevant facts available

on record in regard thereto are that the rectification

application was filed on 01.12.2017 through e-portal. This

was transferred to the concerned AO on 05.12.2017 and the

order was passed by the AO on 09.11.2018 i.e. after the

expiry of six months. The relevant provision setting down

the limitation of 6 months under whose shelter the challenge

is posed is sub-section (8) of Section 154 which mandated

that the AO was bound to pass an order within six months

from the end of the month, date on which the application is

received by the AO. The provision under discussion is

reproduced for the sake of completeness :

“154(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee 30[or by the deductor] on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,— (a) making the amendment; or (b) refusing to allow the claim.]

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 7 of 16

9.2. Instruction 01/2016 issued by the CBDT

clarifying/amplifying the provisions had also been relied

upon which as per submission recorded in the impugned

order were clarified as under:

"Sub-section (8) of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) stipulates that where an application for amendment is made by assessee/deductor/collector with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record, the income-tax authority concerned shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which such an application is received, by either making the amendment or refusing to allow the claim. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the said time-limit of six months has not been observed in deciding some applications. In such cases, the field authorities often take a view that since no action was taken within the prescribed time- frame, the application of the taxpayer is deemed to have lapsed, thereby not requiring any action. 2. The matter has been examined by the Board. In this regard, the undersigned is directed to convey that the aforesaid time-limit of six months is to be strictly followed by the Assessing Officer while disposing applications filed by the assessee/deductor/collector under section 154 of the Act. The supervisory officers should monitor the adherence of prescribed time limit and suitable administrative action may be initiated in cases where failure to adhere to the prescribed time frame is noticed. "

9.3. In the Rectification Application, it had been stated that

the assessee had by mistake included the amount received in

its computation of taxable income in ignorance of the fact

that it was a non taxable event. It was claimed that he had

also wrongly paid tax thereon. For supporting the argument

that the amount was not taxable on which tax had been paid

inadvertently reliance was placed on CBDT circular No.

36/2016 dated 25.10.2016 which according to the assessee

extended the exemption by including compulsorily acquired

land without any restriction on area as well as classification

of land. The claim had been made under the Right to Fair

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 8 of 16

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-

habilitation and Re -settlement Act 2013 (RFCTLARR) which,

it was claimed was made applicable from January, 2014.

The assessee claimed to have in advertently by mis take treated the amoun ts s o received as a taxabl e event and sough t rectification. 9.4 In the said background challenge is posed on the

grounds that the rectification order wrongly treated the

application as not maintainable on the ground that it was

filed by the counsel whereas it had been filed by the

assessee. The assessee in the detailed note extracted in

pages 3 to 6 has put forth the claim that the mistake was

brought to the notice of the AO on the instruction of the

assessee by the counsel who only acted after the rectification

application u/s 154 was filed electronically by the assessee.

It has been assailed that A.O. can't reject the claim simply because the

appellant had shown it taxable in the return of income and there is no estoppel against the assessee to claim exemption.

9.5 The assessee has further ass ailed the action relyin g upon

Article 265 of the Constitution of India pleading that tax can be levied only under th e express provision of law and not on accoun t of ignorance or mistake of th e assess ee.

9.6 Similarly challenge is also posed on the ground that the

AO is not justified to dismiss assessee's claim holding that the

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 9 of 16

appellant wants to make a fresh claim on the basis of fresh material as the A.O. has failed to make distinction between a fresh claim and revised claim. It has been

argued that no fresh claim on the basis of any fresh material

has been made. The claim is made on th e grounds that the

tax has been paid on th e basis of wrong interpretations of the provis ions of the law.

9.7 Considering these arguments, the CIT(A) came to the

following conclusion :

“05. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 : in disposing of the rectification application, the Ld. AR mentions that the rectification application has been filed by the Counsel to the Appellant in his own signature and without Vakalatnama on 14.05.2018 while the appellant in the above grounds of appeal argues that the appellant himself had through his own user name and password had actually filed an application for rectification on 01-12-2017 through e-filing portal vide acknowledgment no. 322201290011217 which was transferred to the A.O. on 05-12- 2017 and which was to be decided within six months as per section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Instruction No. 3 /2013 dated 05-07-2013 (vide F.No. 225/76/2013/UA.II):- • There is facility to file the Application meant for Rectification of Mistake either (a)to submit online, or (b) to submit by post or in person. • If the Applications u/s 154 is submitted by post or in person, the same should be received, diarized and acknowledgment number should be given to the applicant by the receiving Officer immediately at the time of filing the application. • On receipt of such "Rectification Application" the same has to be compulsorily uploaded in "Online Rectification Register" by the Officer on the day of application is received by him, even when such application is received in his own office directly or by post. In either way, obtaining the Acknowledgement Number is a basic entitlement of the applicant while submitting the application u/s 154 by the Officer. The Ld. AR argues that the rectification application had been disposed of in belated fashion and the order rejecting the application is non-est. The Ld AO in his order u/s 154 makes no reference to the e-filed rectification application.

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 10 of 16

I have examined the submission of the Ld AR, the findings of the Ld. AO and contextualized these to these grounds of appeal. That the appellant filed a rectification application online 01-12-2017 through his account on the e-filing portal http//www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in vide acknowledgment no. 322201290011217 is a matter of record. That this application was transferred to the A.O. on 05-12-2017 is also verifiable from record. It is my considered view that the rectification application duly e- filed was not disposed of within the statutory time limit and that the application referred to by the AO is a manual application filed later by the Counsel for the appellant which has been disposed of in the impugned order.-The manual application signed by the Counsel, is in itself not regular unless it is by way of a reminder with regards to the online application filed. That the substantive issue is dealt with in the remaining grounds of appeal makes the objections raised in these grounds academic. The appellant succeeds in part on these grounds of appeal.

issues raised are being decided under the following sub-

issues:

i) Limitation ii) What would constitute record ? and iii) Can written submissions without a conscious waiver be treated as waive of Right to be heard ? 11. LIMITATION 11.1 Addressing the first of the above issues, it is eminently

clear that the conclusion that the Rectification application

duly e-filed was not disposed of within the statutory time

limit remains unaddressed. Similarly, the reasoning that the

application referred to by the AO is a manual application

filed later by the Counsel for the appellant cannot be

considered to be the original application filed through e-

portal appears to b e a case of heads you loose and tails also you loos e. The submission afforded as an argument cannot

be substituted for the original application to the prejudice of

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 11 of 16

the assessee. If there were deficiencies, in the e-filing of the

application, these should have been notified to the assessee

for correcting the defect. The tax authorities cannot be s een

to violate the Statutory time lin es at their whims and fan cies. The disposal of the appeal in this manner cannot be

upheld.

11.2 Similarly the reasoning that, “ The manual application

signed by the Counsel, is in itself not regular unless it is by

way of a reminder with regards to the online application

filed” also does not address the issues at hand. The issue

remains open since it is unclear was it treated as a reminder

or a substitution. Moreover, the fundamental challenge that

the action was be yond the stipulated timeline re mains

unaddressed. A t th e cost of repetition, in case there were

any deficiencies in th e rectification application filed by the assessee, then the def ect should have been notified and opportun ity to correct the s ame should have been provided. The assessee cannot be subsequently burdened on account of

lapses etc. which were never pointed out. The primary issue

which thus, remains for consideration is can the rectification

order be said to have been passed within the statutory

timeline. On the facts as available on record, it appears that

the answer is no. However, since the issue has been

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 12 of 16

deflected/obfuscated, it is remanded back for consideration

afresh.

12.1 In case the assessee does not succeed on the primary

issue, the order again is open to the challenge on the

grounds as to wh at would cons titute the record f or a case of

rectification like this wh erein th e return is e-filed.

12.2 The record in a case where returns are e-filed, to my

understanding, would not only constitute what is permitted to be

e-filed on the e-portal but would also necessarily constitute all

the facts and evidences taken into consideration for filing the

necessary columns in the e-portal. This would include the orders

and documents passed/made available by various other

connected authorities as in the facts of the present case, the

Land Acquisition Officer. Without getting into the aspect that it

is only just and due taxes for the State which ought to be

collected, it goes without saying that the limitations of

documents only filed on e-portal cannot operate against the citizen taxpayers. The systems set in place for robust tax

collection cannot be so used as to deprive the tax paying citizens

from getting a fair hearing and seek a proper adjudication on

disputed facts. Such an action would be wholly unjustified. The

systems and e-portals are still in the process of being fine tuned

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 13 of 16

and still in the process of being perfected. They cannot be

presumed to be so sacrosanct and final and thus beyond critical scrutiny. For the purposes of the present proceedings, I will

confine myself to holding that every statutory order/decision and

relevant facts which went into the decision making of punching the figures on e-portal at the relevant point of time would constitute the record for the purposes of proceedings u/s 154. All

bonafide mistakes of ignorance of facts; misinterpretation and

incorrect understanding of relevant statutory provisions etc.

applicable at that specific point of time would be covered under

this umbrella. The axioms that the mistake is rectifiable only

which is patently evident on the face of the record ofcourse

remains inviolate what has been elaborated is what would

constitute the record.

which have been invoked. I am of the view that the answer posed

to the above question is a ‘no’. Right to be heard forms the bed

rock of the principles of natural justice. The word natural

justice is derived from the Roman word " Jus naturale" hich

presupposes principles of natural law including justice,

equity, fair play and good conscience. Fair play pre supposes

fair notice of charge, and place of hearing, opportunity of

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 14 of 16

effective hearing to address the charge and spe aking order

addressing the reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the

claims put forth. Audi alterem partem which is one of the

foundational and fundamental bed rocks of natural justice

means that no one should be condemned un heard. Though

these Rules are not necessarily codified, however, these have

evolved over the years and are expected to be adhered to not

only when statutory provisions so provide but have also been

impliedly read into and necessarily required to be adhered to

also in quasi administrative decisions whereby the rights /

interests of the party are adversely effected. In such

circums tances, fair pl ay and Rule of law necessitates th at the procedure required to be adhered necess arily envisages a right to be heard.

13.2 In the facts of the present case, it is seen that written

submissions had been advanced. It is seen that the submissions

were considered but did not find favour with the First Appellate

Authority as the order u/s 154 stood confirmed. From the body of

the order, it is not evident whether the assessee was confronted

with the fact that its written submissions were not sufficient for

relief prayed for and that the assessee was given an opportunity

of being heard thereafter.

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 15 of 16

13.3 It is trite law that in the eventuality, written submissions

of the assessee were found to be insufficient for granting relief

and were considered to be not relevant, then the assessee should

in all fairness be necessarily confronted with the fact that its

claim was not allowable and be given due notice thereof. The

purpose being that if the assessee still has something further to

say, the opportunity of so saying should have been provided. The

arbitrary presumption that the assessee shall have nothing to

state cannot be upheld. The due process of law envisages an

opportunity of fair representation. It is evident from the

impugned order assailing which specific ground invoking

principles of natural justice has been taken that the right to be heard was not waived off by the assessee by mere making available of the written submissions to the First Appellate Authority. No

doubt a party may choose to waive the right to be heard and

instead choose to rely only on written submissions. However,

it is the duty of the adjudicating authorities to ensure that

the waiver so made is intelligently made and with full knowledge and understanding i.e; with the foreknowledge that the right to be heard 'exists. The record is silent on this aspect. In the facts of the

present case there is nothing on record to show that the

right to be heard was consciously and knowingly waived.

13.4 Accordingly, in view thereof, the order cannot be

upheld and deserves to be set aside.

ITA-1089/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 16 of 16

the impugned order is set aside in toto and restored back to the file

of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in

accordance with law first on the maintainability of the order itself

after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In case the assessee does not succeed the other issues challenged

shall become live on which too, the ld. Commissioner shall pass a

speaking order in accordance with law. Said order was pronounced

at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties

via Webex.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 29TH April,2021.

Sd/- (�दवा �संह ) (DIVA SINGH) �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member “पूनम” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2.��यथ�/ The Respondent 3.आयकर आयु�/ CIT4.आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A)5.िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6.गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar