Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the assessment order dated
29.07.2022, passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act')by
the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) subsequent to the order of ld. Dispute Resolution
Panel (ld. DRP for short), dismissing the objection raised by the assessee vide order dated
15.06.2022, on the ground that the assessee has filed Form 35A with the signature of the
assessee’s authorized representative who was not the agent within the meaning of section
163(1) of the Act, pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y. for short) 2019-20.
The assessee has challenged the order of DRP dated 15.06.2022, where the DRP
has not considered the submission made by the assessee and by treating the rectified
Form 35A as not filed within the prescribed time limit. The assessee has also challenged
2 ITA No. 2179/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2019-20) Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia vs. ITO
the other grounds where additions have been made by the A.O. in computing the long
term capital gain (LTCG for short).
The brief facts are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total
income of Rs.13,94,170/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the draft
order dated 29.09.2021 was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act, proposing the
assessment of total income at Rs.7,41,60,665/- by the A.O. The assessee filed objection
against the draft order before the DRP(2), Mumbai on 28.10.2021. The ld. DRP
dismissed the objection raised by the assessee on the ground that Form No. 35A filed by
the assessee was signed by Shri Rashmikant C. Modi, Chartered Accountant who then
stated that they were not agent of the assessee within the meaning of provision of section
163(1) of the Act.
By considering the above submission, the ld. DRP held that as Form No. 35A
ought to be filed by the assessee himself or through his agent as per Rule 4, clause (i) of
the DRP Rules and since Form 35A was signed by Shri R. C. Modi, who in their
respective letter claimed to be not an agent of the assessee. The ld. DRP failed to consider
the rectified Form No.35A and considered to be not filed within the time limit and
thereby the objection raised by the assessee was rejected.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was in appeal before us.
Having heard both the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we
are inclined to remand the said matter to the ld. DRP for adjudication on merits by duly
considering the rectified Form No. 35A.
3 ITA No. 2179/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2019-20) Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia vs. ITO
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. Balaganesh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 30.11.2022 Roshani, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai