ARUN RAMKRISHNA PATIL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM.OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,THANE, THANE

The appellant, M/s. Arun Ramkrishna Patil (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that :- “The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of C.P.C. passed u/s. 154 of IT Act, 1961. This is a technical issue required for verification that, the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- relates to what period.”

Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issues at hand are: assessee’s return of income filed for the year under consideration was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by Assessing Officer (AO)/ACIT CPC Bangalore vide which advance payment of tax made by the assessee has been wrongly taken as payment and the period denoted wrongly as A.Y. 2011-12 at Rs.8,00,000/- instead of A.Y. 2012-13. Assessee filed rectification application before AO which was also dismissed.

Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal challenging the order passed under section 154 of the Act who has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.

This appeal was instituted on 25.05.2022 thereafter none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notices were sent to the assessee for 11.08.2022 and 15.09.2022 through registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) not received back served/unserved. Since period of more than one month has already elapsed the notices sent to the assessee are presumed to have been served, but the assessee has not preferred to put in appearance to prosecute this appeal. Consequently, the Bench has decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of documents available on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue.

I have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.

From the statement of facts filed by the assessee it is categorically pleaded that the assessee has paid advance tax of Rs.8,00,000/- as advance tax on 13.03.2012. The assessee also claimed that he had claimed both the amount paid as advance tax while filing the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 but AO/CPC while passing the order under section 143(1)(9) only granted credit of advance of Rs.8,00,000/- paid on 13.03.2012. These facts have also not in dispute by the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee, however, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the premise that “the appellant has not substantiated that he has not claimed or has not been allowed any benefit of amount of Rs.8,00,000/- paid in A.Y. 2011-12. Reasons for dismissal of the appeal given by the Ld. CIT(A) are apparently not sustainable being vague and ambiguous one because assessee has specifically claimed to have paid the advance tax twice but has not been given credit of the advance tax of Rs.8,00,000/- paid on 13.12.2011.

No doubt assessee has admitted on record that while making payment as advance tax for A.Y. 2012-13 he committed a mistake by denoting the period as A.Y. 2011-12 for which credit needs to be given to the assessee on the face of the fact that it was mistake apparent on record. He has filed application for additional evidence in this regard to bring on record for income tax return filed for A.Y. 2011-12 along with computation of income.

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that when payment of Rs.8,00,000/- has admittedly been made by the assessee on 13.12.2011 and mistakenly claimed the same for A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13 the credit thereof needs to be given to the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed application for additional evidence to bring on record income tax return along with computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12 to prove the fact that he has not taken any such benefit of the amount in question of Rs.8,00,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12, but has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A).

To decide the issue once for all I am of the considered view that the case needs to be remitted back to the AO to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and if proved that the amount in question has never been claimed in A.Y. 2011-12, the benefit thereof be given to the assessee after thorough verification. Needless to say that the AO shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing further order. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.