Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 23.05.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2007-08.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The AO, vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed under section 154 of the Act, had raised a demand of Rs.46,550/-. The entire order of the AO passed under section 154 of the Act has been reproduced at para 5.1 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) (refer pages 4 and 5 of the CIT(A)’s order).
Against the demand raised in order passed under section 154 of the Act by the AO, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:
“5.4. After duly considering the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, reply of the appellant and the details mentioned in the documentary evidence uploaded by the appellant . the appeal is decided as under: (i) The evidence available in the electronically filed ITR V/ITR 2 for the A.Y.2007-08 on 30.07.2007. has much more merit & force , than the evidence available in the Copy of Acknowledgement of ITR for the A.Y.2007-08 , manually filed [date is not legible] by the Appellant. Perusal of Copy of Acknowledgement of ITR for the A.Y.2007-08 , manually filed [date is not legible] by the Appellant reveal that the assessment year 2008-09 has been scored off and 2007-08 has been manually written by the appellant. Further after the name- V.S.Venkatesh the word [Mirosoft] is written within bracket. Why the assessment year 2008-09 has been scored off and 2007-08 has been manually written? Why after the name- V.S.Venkatesh the word [Mirosoft] is written within bracket. while actually the Appellant was employed in M/s.Talisma Corporation P Ltd . as Senior Manager-Technology. during the A.Y.2007- 08? The above two evidence go against the Appellant. (iii) The Appellant is a knowledgeable person and was occupying a responsible post-Senior Manger -Technology in M/s.Talisma Corporation P Ltd , during the A.Y.2007-08. He has e filed . the ITR 2 on 30.07.2007 mentioning total income at Rs.18 74,456/-. Therefore it is hereby held that in the order u/s 154 dated 19.01.2023, the AO-ACIT Circle 6(1) (1) Bengaluru - has correctly taken the income at Rs.18.74.460/- and has correctly raised a demand of Rs.46.550/- , and the same is hereby CONFIRMED. (iv) The Appellant is a knowledgeable person and was occupying a responsible post-Senior Manger -Technology in M/s.Talisma Corporation P Ltd . during the A.Y.2007-08. But why he has not filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y.2007-08, if at all there were any omission or wrong statement . The appellant has not availed the benefits of sec. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. within the time stipulated. Therefore it is hereby held that in the order u/s 154 dated 19.01.2023, the AO- ACIT Circle 6(1) (1) Bengaluru - has correctly taken the income at Rs.18,74.460/- and has correctly raised a demand of Rs.46,550/- , and the same is hereby CONFIRMED. (v) The Appellant is a knowledgeable person and he may be aware that reducing his total income based on the Copy of Acknowledgement of ITR for the A.Y.2007-08 , manually filed [date is not legible] may lead to other complications/technical issues/frauds and therefore his claim made in this appeal ,has no merit and the same is hereby REJECTED. 5.5. In result. the appeal is DISSMISSED.”
4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee appeared virtually. The assessee submitted that the demand has been raised in the order passed under section 154 of the Act, only on account of non-granting of the deduction under section 80C of the Act and loss incurred under the head ‘income from house property’. It was submitted that the above two deductions are reflected in Form 16 and the AO and CIT(A) have erred in not granting deductions.
The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the return of income was filed on 31.07.2008. The return of income was filed manually. During the relevant Assessment Year, assessee had resigned from his earlier employment and had taken up employment with Microsoft Ltd. Hence, there was a reference to Microsoft Ltd., in the income-tax return filed by the assessee. The limited prayer of the assessee in the present appeal is to grant deduction under section 80C and the interest on housing loan. I have perused Form 16 issued by the employer of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year. In Form 16, it is clearly mentioned that assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- under section 80C of the Act. Further, interest payment on housing loan is also mentioned in the Form 16. It is stated that the demand under section 154 of the Act has arisen only on account of non-granting of deduction under section 80C of the Act and on the interest payment on housing loan. The above two amounts are clearly reflected in Form 16 and the same has not been considered by the AO nor the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remanded to the AO to examine the claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act and housing loan interest repayment. The AO is directed to examine Form 16 issued by the employer of the assessee and grant the deduction claimed accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.