Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP:
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 09-01- 2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18.
The following grounds have been raised in this appeal :
The learned CIT is not justified in raising demand u/s 156 of Rs.5,15,323/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said raising demand was not justified in law.
2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly explained that reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences m form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the raised demand u/s 156 without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act.
3. The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that the bona fides of the explanation offered by assesses were established from the fact that the assesses, being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and no such incorrect claim was ever made by the assesses either in past years or in subsequent years and therefore, the levy of demand u/s 156 was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesses.”
Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the assessee furnished the return declaring income of Rs.7,09,520/-. The assessment was finalised u/s.147 at the same level. The assessee raised certain issues before the ld. CIT(A), which were disposed of with necessary directions. Now the assessee has come up in appeal on the above grounds.
I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.
The first issue taken up before the ld. CIT(A) was condonation of delay, which was accepted by the ld.CIT(A) and the delay was condoned. The second issue was the initiation of penalty u/s.270A of the Act. This ground was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) as premature and hence, not maintainable. The third decision of the ld. CIT(A) was in favour of the assessee by directing the AO to allow credit for TDS amounting to Rs.68,912/- before charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C. The fourth decision of the ld. CIT(A) was on the charging of interest u/s.234A towards delay in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the amount of interest accordingly after taking the total income at Rs.7,09,520/- as against Rs.16,71,140/- wrongly taken by the AO. This decision is also in favour of the assessee. The last decision of the ld. CIT(A) was for allowing credit for TDS amounting to Rs.75,153/- after verification of record. In view of all the foregoing decisions of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that there is no infirmity whatsoever on all the points decided by him. The grounds taken up by the assessee in the appeal, as extracted above, do not refer to any prejudice having been caused by virtue of assessment or the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The grounds are general and talk about the raising of demand u/s.156, which is consequential to the assessment. There is no specific challenge to any addition. In fact, there is no addition at all inasmuch as the AO accepted the returned income and assessed the assessee at the same level. In the hue of the foregoing, I am clear that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is perfectly in order, not requiring any interference.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th June, 2023.