Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA & SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The said appeal is filed before the bench against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17/ Chennai (in brevity Ld. CIT(A)), bearing order no-ITA TR IN No. 436/2014-15 u/s. 250(6) dated 02.07.2018 under the Income Tax Act (in brevity ‘the Act’).
:-2-: ITA. No: 2831/Chny/2018 2. The brief fact of the case is that the Ld. Assessing Officer (in brevity Ld AO) had passed order giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dated 02.09.2013 related to assessment year 2010-11. The Ld. AO rectified his order dated 24.02.2014. But the Ld AO was not taking consideration, the following transactions of Trust related payment made to Angamuthu Rs. 9,50,000/-, purchasing weighing machine Rs. 5,58,443/- and payment to Toshio Nakayama Rs. 2,98,500/-. In this order, that above mentioned three amounts totaling Rs. 18,06,943/- was not considered as application of income but as taxable income. As per the Ld AO, the transactions had no relation with activity of trust. After that, the assessee filed another rectification petition on dated 23.09.2014 and explained the two payments related Angamuthu amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- & Toshio Nakayama Rs. 2,98,500/-. The assessee explained in the petition that the payment to Angamuthu was repayment of loan during the year which received by trust on dated 24.01.2006 and related to Toshio Nakayama amount to Rs. 2,98,500/- was wrongly credited to the bank account of the assessee.
But the Ld. AO did not gave cognizance of this two payments. The Ld AO rejected the rectification petition as the matter was raised first time before him which is not under perview u/s. 154 of the Act.
:-3-: ITA. No: 2831/Chny/2018 The observation of the Ld. AO in order dated 08.12.2014 bearing order no AAATM 4663P/2014-15 which read as follows: “ 4. At the outset, it may be noted that the matters raised by the assessee are not borne out from the records; rather the contention of the assessee is a new one. It is by now well settled that mistake apparent from record are only amenable to rectification u/s.
In the case on hand, as stated supra, there is nothing in the record to substantiate the contentions of the assessee. Hence, it is beyond the scope of the undersigned to entertain the rectification petition of the assessee. Accordingly, the rectification petition of the assessee is dismissed.”
Against the rectification order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “ As rightly pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order was disputed in appeal and this issue was not raised earlier. The claims made by the appellant involve fresh determination of facts and statutory interpretation once again. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the Assessing Officer rightly rejected the petition filed u/s. 154 by the appellant. The appellant fails on this ground.”
After receiving the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal petition before us.
The Counsel of the assessee filed paper book on dated 04.09.2019 which is kept in the record. As per the paper book, the details of the payments are filed by the assessee in paper book page no. 14 to 18. It is very clear that the particular issue was previously raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) during the first appeal and rectification order dated 24.02,2014 was passed by the Ld AO
:-4-: ITA. No: 2831/Chny/2018 considering the first appeal order of the ld CIT(A). The issue is raised before the bench. But, in this stage it is not possible for verification of the payments, made by the assessee. The matter is returned back to the Assessing Officer to take cognizance of the two payments and rectify the order under perview of Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld AO is directed to rectify the order U/s 154 of the Act considering the genunity of transactions as discussed above. Apart from above, the assessee submitted that the AO did not allowed 15% deduction u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act while passing rectification order even though same was allowed while passing giving effect. Therefore, we direct the Ld. AO to allow 15% as per section 11(1)(a) of the Act and compute income.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 11th March, 2022 at Chennai.