TOMONORI TODA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(IT) WARD-2(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 2215/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 December 2024AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the return electronically on 27.07.2023 and e-verified it on 24.08.2023, beyond the 30-day period, leading to the denial of the section 115BAC benefit by the CPC. The CIT(A) had also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him. However, considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Furthermore, referring to the CBDT notification mentioned by the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2023-24 electronically on 27.07.2023, declaring a gross total income of Rs.1,14,33,830/- and opting for taxation under section 115BAC. The return was e-verified on 24.08.2023, which was 4 days beyond the stipulated 30-day period for e-verification. Consequently, the CPC processing the return denied the benefit of section 115BAC and raised a demand of Rs.2,59,740/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 18.03.2024, which was also belated. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on both counts: the delay in e-verification and the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) when the assessee has not provided sufficient cause for the delay. 2. Whether the benefit of section 115BAC should be denied to the assessee due to a delay of 4 days in e-verifying the return of income. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that as a non-resident, he was unaware of the CPC's acknowledgment regarding the processing of his return. He submitted a letter to the CPC for condoning the 4-day delay in e-verification and placed a screenshot of the IT website indicating no ITR-V was received after the due date. The assessee also relied on CBDT notification No.02/2024 and its corrigendum dated 31.03.2023, contending that the return should be treated as valid and benefits under the Act should be allowed. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 139(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri. Nithin Surana A, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 26.12.2024Pronounced: 27.12.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT(IT)A No.2215/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Tomonori Toda, ITO (International Taxation), B 102, 1st Floor, Brigade Magnaum, Ward –2(1), International Airport Amruthahalli, Hebbal, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 092. PAN : BZUPT 2987 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Nithin Surana A, CA Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 26.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) vide Order dated 23.09.2024 (DIN No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1068998672 (1)) vide the ground of appeal taken by the assessee .

2.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident, filed his return of income on 22.07.2023 under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring gross total income of Rs.1,14,33,830/-. The declared income from salary of Rs1,14,23,830/- and income from other sources of Rs.10,000/- and the assessee has also exercised option of being taxed under section 115BAC. The acknowledgment No. vide No. 603496470220723 was generated

IT(IT)A No.2215/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4

electronically. As per the scheme of e-filing return, the assessee has to e- verified within 30 of transmission of of return of income, whereas the assessee e-verified on 24.08.2023. Accordingly, while processing the return by the CPC, the benefit under section 115BAC of the Act was not given because there was a delay of 4 days and the delay was not condoned and raised the demand of Rs.2,59,740/- vide intimation reference No.CPC/2324/A2/286333431dated 15.12.2023.

3.

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 18.03.2024 belatedly. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has not e-verified within 30 days from the date of filing of the return as per e-filing scheme and assessee has also filed appeal belatedly. Resultantly, the delay was not condoned by the CIT(A). On both the counts, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The learned Counsel submitted that regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee is a non-resident and employed with M/s. Kintestsu World Express (India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore during the year under consideration and assessee was not aware about the acknowledgment generated by the CPC regarding processing of return u/s 143(1)(a). When assessee came to know that there is a demand raised by the CPC and it has not given benefit of section 115BAC of the Act, assessee, filed a letter for condoning the delay of 4 days for e-verification of the electronically return filed vide application dated 01.03.2024 to the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, and the application is placed at Paper Book page Nos.69 to 70. The assessee has also

IT(IT)A No.2215/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4

placed a screenshot of the IT website stating that the assessee has no ITR for which ITR-V was received after due date which is placed at Paper Book page No.71. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that CBDT has issued notification No.02/2024 and corrigendum to notification on 02/2024 dated 31.03.2023. As per this notification, the return of income filed by the assessee should be treated as a valid return and it was everified within the due date. Accordingly, he requested that the income tax return filed by the assessee shall be treated as a valid return and the tax credit and other benefits provided as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be allowed to the assessee.

6.

The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities.

7.

Considering the arguments from both sides, we noted that the assessee filed return of income electronically on 27.07.2023 where it was verified on 24.08.2023 which is beyond the period of 30 days. Accordingly, the CPC has not given benefit of section 115BAC of the I T Act. 1961. The CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 15.12.2023 and appeal was filed on 18.03.2024. Considering the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel has referred to notification issued by the CBDT noted above. Considering the above notification, we are remitting the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

IT(IT)A No.2215/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated: 27.12.2024. /NS/*

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file

By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →