Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired government servant, filed his return declaring a total income of Rs.45,32,620/- and claimed relief of Rs.2,95,058/- under section 89(1). The CPC processed the return and denied this relief, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the denial of relief solely on the technical ground of Form 10E not being uploaded electronically was not justified, especially when documentary evidence like Form 16 was available. The assessee was given another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether denial of relief under section 89(1) on a technical procedural lapse (non-upload of Form 10E) is justified when substantive evidence exists, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present the case.
Sections Cited
89(1), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year:2014-15 Arun Kumar Singh v. The Income Tax Officer 127/295, W Block Ward 2(2)(3) Keshav Nagar, Kanpur Kanpur Nagar TAN/PAN:ABHPS8877K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 24 04 2025 Date of pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore for Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired Government servant. The assessee filed his return of income on 23.07.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.45,32,620/-, claiming relief of Rs.2,95,058/- under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.45,32,620/-. While processing the return of income of the assessee, the CPC denied the relief claimed by the assessee of Rs.2,95,058/- and raised a demand of Rs.3,32,520/-.
3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore came to be dismissed.
4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the Lat. Addl/JCIT (Appeals), Mysore has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessing officer, CPC, Bengaluru intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 05/12/2014 and denying the relief u/s 89(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.2,95,058/- despite the fact that: The relief was duly claimed in the original IT'R filed on 23/07/2014. The employer had already accounted for the relief u/s 89(1) in Form No.
16. The Appellant had submitted Form 10E before the employer as per prescribed guidelines. The failure to upload Form 10E on e-filing portal was a mere procedural lapse which should not be a ground for denial of a legitimate claim.
2. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A), Mysore erred in dismissing the appeal on sole technical ground that Form 10E was not uploaded electronically, despite clear documentary evidence supporting the claim of relief u/s 89(1) including Form No 16 (salary certificate) which already accounted for the relief u/s 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A), Mysore has erred in law and on facts, in not considering the established legal principle that procedural law is meant to facilitate, not obstruct, substantive justice. Relief u/s 89(1) is a statutory right and its denial on technical grounds would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.
4. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before hearing of appeal.
5. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
6. I have heard the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. A perusal of record shows that the relief claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act of Rs.2,95,058/- was denied by the CPC on the ground that the requisite Form 10E was not e-filed by the assessee. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore confirmed the order of the AO denying the relief claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act for the same reason. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the manually filled Form 10E as Form 10E filed electronically and grant appropriate relief under section 89(1) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the assessee. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2025.
Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:28/04/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Arun Kumar Singh v. The Income Tax Officer 127/295, W Block Ward 2(2)(3) Keshav Nagar, Kanpur Kanpur Nagar TAN/PAN:ABHPS8877K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 24 04 2025 Date of pronouncement: 28 04 2025 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired Government servant. The assessee filed his return of income on 23.07.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.45,32,620/-, claiming relief of Rs.2,95,058/- under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.45,32,620/-. While processing the return of income of the assessee, the CPC denied the relief claimed by the assessee of Rs.2,95,058/- and raised a demand of Rs.3,32,520/-.
Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore came to be dismissed.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the Lat. Addl/JCIT (Appeals), Mysore has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessing officer, CPC, Bengaluru intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 05/12/2014 and denying the relief u/s 89(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.2,95,058/- despite the fact that: The relief was duly claimed in the original IT'R filed on 23/07/2014. The employer had already accounted for the relief u/s 89(1) in Form No.
The Appellant had submitted Form 10E before the employer as per prescribed guidelines. The failure to upload Form 10E on e-filing portal was a mere procedural lapse which should not be a ground for denial of a legitimate claim.
2. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A), Mysore erred in dismissing the appeal on sole technical ground that Form 10E was not uploaded electronically, despite clear documentary evidence supporting the claim of relief u/s 89(1) including Form No 16 (salary certificate) which already accounted for the relief u/s 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A), Mysore has erred in law and on facts, in not considering the established legal principle that procedural law is meant to facilitate, not obstruct, substantive justice. Relief u/s 89(1) is a statutory right and its denial on technical grounds would be contrary to the intent of the legislature.
4. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before hearing of appeal.
None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
I have heard the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. A perusal of record shows that the relief claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act of Rs.2,95,058/- was denied by the CPC on the ground that the requisite Form 10E was not e-filed by the assessee. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore confirmed the order of the AO denying the relief claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act for the same reason. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the manually filled Form 10E as Form 10E filed electronically and grant appropriate relief under section 89(1) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the assessee. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2025.