Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : November 21, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: Both the appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 19.09.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Since, common issues are involved in both the appeals, hence these have heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Earlier the appeals of the assessee were decided vide order dated 01.05.2023. However, some mistakes apparent on record was noting down and facts were brought to our knowledge vide MA Nos.45&46/Kol/2023. The said M.As were decided vide order dated Assessment years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Young Mens Welfare Society 28.07.2023 and the orders of 01.05.2023 in both the appeals were recalled. In view of the above position, the appeals were heard again and are adjudicated as under: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) who inadvertently filed the return in ITR Form 7 instead of ITR Form No.5. The said return was processed by the Central Processing Centre and thereby the assessee was taxed at maximum marginal rates without giving deduction of expenses.
Being aggrieved by the said action, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, however, the same was rejected in a mechanical manner by the Assessing Officer. The appeals filed by the assessee have also been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) holding the same as barred by limitation.
Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) is required to be treated within the limitation period as the same was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suomoto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee has filed rectification application which has been dismissed by the Assessing Officer in a mechanical manner. However, the claim of the assessee was, therefore, rejected by the CPC and the assessee was taxed at maximum marginal rate without giving deduction of the expenses. However, the assessee filed the M.A which was also rejected by the Assessing Officer. In view of the aforesaid action of the lower authorities without considering the claim of the assessee on merits was not justified. It has been held time and again that the Income Tax Authorities are not supposed to punish assessees for their bona fide mistake. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the lower