QAYUM IMAIL MUKADDAM,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) , DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.43/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Qayum Ismail Mukaddam CIT(Appeal) 534/D Garden Colony S6, Soonawala NFAC, New Delhi Vs. Agiary Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016

PAN/GIR No. AKFPM 9158 C (Appellant) (Respondent) :

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair

Date of Hearing : 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal

Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15.

hear the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and

peruse the material available on record.

The learned A.O. rejected appellant’s request in considering the income details declared by him in his original return & making addition of Rs.15,43,460/- on the contention that revised return filed by him is invalid as the original return was

2 ITA No. 43/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) filed belated. The learned A.O. had not considered the submissions such as Form 16, Bank statements, Form 26AS & also rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 passed by ITO which were made by appellant during the course of scrutiny proceedings. The learned CIT(Appeals) had rejected appellant’s request in dismissing the appeal stating that the assessed income computed by the A.O. as per original return of income filed by the appellant is justified. The appellant prays to ITAT to assess the real income of the appellant i.e. the income reported in the revised return of income. Even though the appellant made a mistake in filing original return, his clerical error should not burden him with additional tax on income which was not earned by him.

the Act dated 23.01.2015 declaring total income at Rs.77,84,860/-. The assessee then

revised his return on 23.01.2015, declaring total income at Rs.62,41,400/-. The original

return was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by accepting the return of income filed

by the assessee. The assessee’s case was then selected for scrutiny and assessment order

dated 28.10.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short), determining the

total income at Rs.77,84,860/- which was the income declared by the assessee in his

original return.

A.O. on the ground that the AO has failed to consider the revised return filed by the

assessee which was declared as invalid for the reason that the original return was filed

belatedly.

filed for AY 2014-15 cannot be revised and as per the Finance Act, 2016 belated return

can be revised only when it is relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 onwards.

3 ITA No. 43/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative (ld.

DR for short) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. It is observed

that the assessee has filed his return of income and has also revised the returns on the

same day declaring lesser income than that of the income declared in the original return.

The assessee in its submission contended that due to oversight, the assessee has

erroneously considered Form 16 of A.Y. 2013-14 for the purpose of filing tax return

instead of considering Form 16 for the AY 2014-15. The assessee has further stated that

he has filed his returns electronically by himself without availing the services of

professionals and, hence, there was an error in considering Form 16 for A.Y. 2013-14

instead of AY 2014-15. The assessee further contended that the same may be verified by

perusing the details disclosed in the said returns. It is also pertinent to point out that the

assessee realizing that there was an error in the original return has immediately on the

same day filed revised return. The lower authorities have failed to consider the revised

return for the reason that the assessee has filed his return of income belatedly thereby

denying the claim of the assessee as the new provision of sections 139(4) and 139(5) of

the Act were introduced in the Finance Act, 2016 which was not applicable to the

assessee’s case. The assessee has relied on the various decisions of the Hon'ble

Jurisdictional High Court and also the decisions of the Tribunal which on perusal was

distinguishable on facts of the present case and was not on similar facts as that of the

present appeal. It is also pertinent to point out that there are varied decisions of various

Hon'ble High Courts which has taken contrary views on this issue. The assessee has not

relied on any of the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this issue. As

the changes brought about in section 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act by the Finance Act,

4 ITA No. 43/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) 2016 was not intended to be applicable retrospectively, we find no merit in the

submission of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no

infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2023.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 01.06.2023 Roshani, Sr. PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai