MAHARAJA AMARSINHJI RATHOD (DECD.),HIMATNAGAR vs. ITO, S.K. WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2306/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 April 2019AY 2004-054 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s direction in AY 2004-05 was illegal as the CIT(A)'s order was not for that assessment year. The AO should have entertained the rectification application.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition for unexplained loans in AY 2005-06. The CIT(A) directed that a portion of this amount, received in FY 2003-04, should be taxed in AY 2004-05. The AO then incorrectly gave effect to this order in AY 2004-05, which the assessee sought to rectify.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order in an assessment year for which it was not passed, and whether the rectification application was rightly rejected.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, AR
For Respondent: Shri T.C. Meena, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27/03/2019

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’

BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2306/Ahd/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Maharaja Amarsinhji Rathod (Decd.) ITO,S.K. Ward-3 Through L/R. Jaideepsinh Amarsinhji Vs Himatnagar. Rathod Pratap Palace, Himatnagar. अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.C. Thaker, AR Revenue by : Shri T.C. Meena, Sr.DR

सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 27/03/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29 /04/2019 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 1.9.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2004-05.

2.

Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing its appeal and confirming order of the AO dated 14.8.2015 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 an assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 19.3.2013 whereby an addition of Rs.35,82,131/- were made to the total income of the assessee. This addition was made on account of unexplained loans and advanced received from Shantisuri Securities P.Ltd. When this

ITA No.2306/Ahd/2017 - 2 -

dispute travelled to the CIT(A), then vide order dated 16.1.2015, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that out of the above addition, Rs.26.44 lakhs was received in the F.Y.2003-04 and cannot be added during the Asstt.Year 2005-06. The following finding of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard is worth to note. It reads as under: page no.13 “…… However, the addition is directed to be restricted to the amount of Rs.10 lakh which has been accepted by the appellant during the year. Addition of rs.26.4 lacs received in Financial Year 2003-04 cannot be made during the present year. Necessary action may be taken by the AO in that year for taxing that amount. The disallowance of interest made by the AO on this loan is also upheld on substantive basis. “

4.

The ld.AO has given effect to this order of the ld.CIT(A) and passed the following order in the Asstt.Year 2004-05:

“ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A)’S ORDER Sr.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Total income as per order u/s.143(3) 4,88,687 dated 17.01.2006 Addition: As per order CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad order dated 16.01.2015 vide para 4.3 1. Order giving to CIT(A) order 26,44,000 Revised total income 31,32,687/-

The total income is revised accordingly. Revised demand notice and challan/RO issued accordingly. Place : Himatnagar Sd/- Date : 09/03/2015 [Sanjay Purabiya] Income-tax Officer S.K.Ward-3, Himatnagar” 5. On receipt of this order, the assessee filed an application for rectification which has been rejected by the AO and his order has been

ITA No.2306/Ahd/2017 - 3 -

reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order, which read as under: "Please refer to your rectification application u/s. 154 of the I. T. Act filed on 07/08/2015 on the above cited subject.

2.

In this connection, 1 would like to inform you that the Hon'ble CIT(A) - 2, Ahmedabad has directed to its order No.CIT(A)-2/ITO, SK Ward-3/91/13-14 dated 16/01/2015 vide para No. 4.3, the amount of closing balance of Rs.26,44,000/- received by assessee for F.Y. 2003-04 is to be added in A. Y. 2004-05 and this office was given appeal effect order of retrospective effect to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A)’s order for A. Y. 2005-06.

3.

In this regard, your rectification application u/s. 154 of the 1. T. Act is hereby rejected and you are dissatisfied to this appeal effect order for A. Y. 2004-05 dated 09/03/2015, you may be preferred an appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A)-2. Ahmedabad.

4.

Further, you are requested to pay the outstanding art-ear demand of Rs.15,21,472/-for A.'Y. 2004-05 within 15 days of the receipt of this letter."

6.

Dissatisfied with this order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has observed that the order passed by the AO on 9.3.2015 cannot be rectified under section 154 because it is a debatable issue and the assessee ought to have challenged that order against which no appeal has been filed.

7.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the order dated 9.3.2015 is patently an illegal order. The ld.CIT(A) has not given any direction to give effect in the Asstt.Year 2004-05. The ld.CIT(A) has merely observed that addition of Rs.26.44 lakhs should be made in the year of receipt i.e. Asstt.Year 2004- 06. The AO ought to have either reopened the assessment or any other remedial action required under the law, but straight away he could not

ITA No.2306/Ahd/2017 - 4 -

give effect to an order which was not passed for the Asstt.Year 2004-05. This was an ex parte order. When the assessee came to know about this order, he filed an application for rectification. His application cannot be thrown out like this, and the ld.CIT(A) failed to note this aspect while confirming the view point of the AO. The AO has observed in the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 that he has given effect to the order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05 also, though, it was passed in the Asstt.Year 2005-06. Had the AO entertained his rectification application and proceeded to dispose of in accordance with law, then, he would have vacated his order dated 9.3.2015 passed in the Asstt.Year 2004-05. There is no debatable issue in that, rather his order dated 9.3.2015 was patently illegal. The AO ought to have entertained the application of the assessee, and ought to have rectified his order dated 9.3.2015. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the ld.CIT(A) and dated 14.8.2015 passed by the AO. We allow the application of the assessee and direct the AO to rectify his order dated 9.3.2015 by deleting the amount of Rs.26.44 lakhs from the taxable income of the assessee in the Asstt.Year 2004-05.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 29th April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated, 29/04/2019

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →