SMT. PREMALATHA PAGARIA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1800/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after noting that the High Court had condoned the delay and remitted the appeal, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at a higher amount than declared due to discrepancies in the profit and loss account. The assessee's subsequent applications for rectification and appeal were rejected by the tax authorities, primarily on grounds of delay and maintainability.

What were the issues?

The key issues involved the maintainability of the appeal due to delay and the AO's duty to provide an opportunity to rectify defective returns under Section 139(9).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(9),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Hearing: 09.05.2022Pronounced: 09.05.2022

Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals), Bengalulru-2, Bengaluru dated 03.09.2015 originally came up for hearing and was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 23.02.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee carried the matter to the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in of 20-17 by judgment dated 27.7.2021 quashed the said order of the Tribunal, condoned the delay of 310 days in filing the appeal and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal for decision afresh. Accordingly, this appeal was taken up for hearing.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceed to dispose this appeal on the basis of material on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

The assessee has inter alia raised the following grounds:- 3.

“1. The impugned order is liable to set aside in so far as the same is illegal, unlawful, improper, irregular and opposed to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the assessment of the Appellant's Total Income made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the particulars of income declared in Part-B-TI and Schedule-BP of the ITR-4 filed by the Appellant.

3.

That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the impugned assessment made by the Assessing Officer disregarding the fact that the Return of Income filed by the Appellant was defective in so far as the particulars filed in Part-A-P & L of the ITR-4 did not tally with Part-B- TI and Schedule -BP of the ITR-4 and that the AO was duty bound to give an opportunity to the Appellant to rectify the said defects in terms of Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in upholding the impugned assessment made by the Assessing Officer disregarding the fact that the Assessing Officer failed in his duty to cause compliance with the duty cast upon him u/s 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal holding that the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant did not resort to filing the Revised Return of Income though she had time to do so. 6. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the reasons adduced by the Appellant for the delay caused as not convincing and thus dismissing the appeal of the appellant disregarding the facts of the case.

7.

That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.18,210/- u/s 234B is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for.

8.

That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.4,462/- u/s 234C is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for.”

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on business under the name and style ‘M/s. Premlatha Pagaria’ as the sole proprietor. She filed the return declaring income at Rs.4,24,480. The AO, CPC vide intimation dated 24.6.2010 assessed the income at Rs.8,83,977 on the ground that entries in the profit & loss account relating to expenses and the corresponding entries in the return did not tally and brought to tax the difference of amount. The assessee vide letter dated 20.7.2010 requested the ITO, CPC vide application u/s. 154 to rectify the mistake and revise the demand of tax, which was rejected by the ACIT, CPC vide communication dated 7.2.2011. Another similar application by the assessee dated 11.4.2011 was also rejected by the ACIT, CPC by communication dated 16.9.2011.

More judgments on Section 139(9)

All 234 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →