SACHIN R. TENDULKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7156/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the issues for AY 2014-15. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the unadjudicated issues, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) despite a combined order being passed for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dealt with the issues for AY 2013-14 but omitted to address those for AY 2014-15.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating grounds relating to deemed rental income, interest under Section 234A, and short credit for TDS for AY 2014-15.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 234A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jain
For Respondent: Shri T.S.Khalsa
Hearing: 20.09.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-34 dated 17.09.2018 and pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under :

GROUND NO.1: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}-34, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)] erred in not adjudicating ground no.2 of the appeal relating to addition made on account of deemed rental income of Rs.3,36,000/-( Rs.4,80,000 - 30% standard deduction) in respect of the vacant flat situated at Sapphire Park, Balewadi, Pune.

The Appellant submits that the since the ground of appeal was common for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, the CIT{A) passed a combined/single order for the both the assessment years. While the CIT(A) allowed the said ground of appeal for the income tax assessment year 2013-14 following the ITAT decision in the Appellant's own case for the income tax assessment year 2012-13, he did not adjudicate the ground of appeal for the income tax assessment year 2014-15.

The Appellant therefore prays that following the ITAT decision in his own case for the assessment year 2012-13, the ACIT be directed to delete the addition of Rs.3,36,000/- made by him.

GROUND NO.2:

The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground no.3 of the appeal relating to charging of interest of Rs.1,22,146/- under section 234A of the Act in computing the tax demand. The Appellant denies his liability to the charge of interest and submits that since the Return of Income for the above assessment year has been filed within the due date, the ACIT ought not to have charged interest under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant has made an application for rectification under section 154 to the ACIT and if the same is rectified before the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant craves leave to withdraw the said ground of appeal. GROUND NO.3:

The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground no.4 of the appeal relating to granting short credit for TDS aggregating to Rs.11,23,599/-. In computing the tax demand, the ACIT had granted credit for TDS aggregating to Rs.5,18,51,414/- as against the Appellant's claim of Rs.5,29,75,013/- thereby granting short credit to the extent of Rs.11,23,599/-. The Appellant submits that he is entitled to full credit of TDS as claimed in the Return of Income and the ACIT ought not to have restricted the same to Rs.5,18,51,414/-. The Appellant therefore prays that the ACIT be directed to allow balance credit of Rs.11,23,599/-.

The Appellant has made an application for rectification under section 154 to the ACIT and if the same is rectified before the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant craves leave to withdraw the said ground of appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in this case Ld.CIT(A) has passed a combined order for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. However in the order Ld.CIT(A) has only dealt with AY 2013-14 and has failed to mention/adjudicate issues raised in AY 2014-15. Against this assessee has filed appeal. The contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that there were similar issues raised in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, while Ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated AY 2013-14, he has omitted to mention/adjudicate AY 2014-15. Ld. DR fairly agreed that Ld.CIT(A) has omitted to adjudicate AY 2014-15. However, Ld. DR pointed out that assessee has mentioned that assessee has filed rectification application u/s. 154 before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

However, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that considerable time has elapsed and Ld.CIT(A) has not passed any order u/s. 154. Upon careful consideration, we note that it is evident that Ld.CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate issues raised for AY 2014-15. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the issues related to this appeal, which were raised before him but have not been adjudicated by him. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

We make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon the merits of the issues in any manner whatsoever.

6.

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 21 .09.2021.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →