SAIKAT CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO 61(1), KOLKATA
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Įी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय के सम¢
[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member]
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee
(PAN: AEFPC 2381 F)
Vs.
ITO, Ward-61(1), Kolkata
Appellant /
)
अपीलाथȸ
(
Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ
Date of Hearing / सुनवाई
कȧ Ǔतͬथ
06.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement/
आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ
30.01.2025
For the assessee /
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से
Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA
For the revenue / राजèव
कȧ ओर से
Shri Abhishek Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr.
D.R
ORDER / आदेश
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the Ld.
CIT(A)] dated 04.07.2024 for AY 2019-20. 2
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed return of income on 30.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 6,69,120/-. An intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act passed by the ADIT. In the intimation, the income was computed at Rs. 6,69,120/- issuing refund of Rs. 1,33,627/- on verification of intimation it is noticed that the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs. 7,66,000/-. CPC while processing has allowed the TDS payment of Rs. 1,74,015/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground of delay as there was a delay of 1296 days.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that delay caused by the assessee was bonafide as it was due to the filing of final appeal by the assessee against the order u/s 139(9) before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.02.2020. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the appeal filed by the assessee against the 139(9) was taken up for hearing for 4 years and thereafter dismissed on the sole ground that the appeal was not maintainable as the appeal was pre-dated and such appeal against 139(9) is not maintainable. The Ld.
Counsel submits that the order passed u/s 139(9) of the Act dated 12.02.2020, and when it was suggested to file an appeal against the order u/s 143(1) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence the delay caused was Bonafide and due to the procedural lack of knowledge that should be condoned. The ld. Counsel further submits that the assessee is an individual filed his income tax return with a total salary income at RS. 8,41,962/-. However, in the Form 26AS the total salary of income was reflected as Rs. 41,63,988/- which included an amount of Rs. 33,22,026/- representing salary earned in Belgium. The Ld. Counsel further submits the salary earned in Belgium is not taxable in India as per the provision of IT Act and also protected under the Double
Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The prayer of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that his case to be restored in the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing by condoning the delay. He has also placed decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of DIT(IT)
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee.
vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc. reported in [2003]153 taxmann.com
704(SC).
5. Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.
6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that it has been dismissed on account of delay as the Ld. CIT(A) hold there was no sufficient cause has been shown with a long delay of 1296 days. We have gone through the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and find that while filing return of income the assessee declared a correct salary as his income as included the salary from Belgium. However, while processing return CPC,
Bengaluru issued a defect under 139(9) on 04.02.2020 stating that there is a mismatch in the salary and as per 26AS and ITR the return shall be treated as defective. It is pertinent to mention here that against such notice u/s 139(9) the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.02.2020. In the meanwhile, CPC, Bengaluru passed an order u/s 143(1) on 1.9.2020 disallowing the proportionate TDS on the ground that the assessee has not shown the entire income as reflected in the 26AS. It further appears that on 20.03.2024 i.e. after four year the appeal against 139(9) was taken up for hearing and dismissed that pre-filing the appeal does not deserve to be adjudicated and hence rejected. The Ld. Counsel has placed the above said order passed on 20.03.2024 before us. The appeal has been filed against the order u/s 143(1) before the Ld. CIT(A) on 19.04.2024 i.e. just within one month from the order passed u/s 250 of the Act dated
20.03.2024. Chronology of events filing of the appeal is depicted herein below:
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee.
Now we have gone through the cited decision of as aforesaid and finds that Hon,ble Apex court has held thus -
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee.
The recent judgment as cited by the assessee also deals thus: “Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963- High Court, appeals to (limitation period)-there was a delay of 1110 days in re-filing of appeals- Revenue explained that delay was due to change in their standing counsel and previous counsel’s failure to inform them about appeal’s status-However, High Court dismissed appeals by observing that explanation offered for condonation of delay sought for by appellant could not be accepted, as, for a long time appeals were lying in defect- Whether if substantial questions of law were of significance then, High Court, ought to have condoned delay in refiling appeals and considered cases on merits and therefore, impugned orders were to be set aside and matter was to be restored to High Court-Held, Yes [Para 6] [In favour of revenue]”
I.T.A. No. 1866/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2019-20
Saikat Chatterjee.
Going over the facts of the case as well as cited decision to condone the delay we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The delay is hereby condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to pass an order on merit after hearing the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th January, 2025 (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप कुमार चौबे)
Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय
Dated: 30th January, 2025
SM, Sr. PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
Appellant- Saikat Chatterjee, Flat-12, K-230, Bodhan Baishnabghata-Patuli Township-700094 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-61(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order