MAYANK RASIKLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC , BENGLURU

The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned National Faceless Appeal Center Delhi erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,85,364/- made by the CPC on account of interest income while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.

The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and partner in the firm namely M/s Superstar Cable Industries and deriving income from capital gain, other sources and profit share from the said firm. The assessee in the year under consideration declared income of Rs. 39,85,850/- only. While processing the return of income under section 143(1), the CPC Bengaluru made an addition of Rs. 15,85,364/- on account of difference in interest income as per form 26AS viz-a-viz interest income declared by the assessee.

The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center Delhi which was dismissed by the holding that right course of action for the assessee to file rectification application under section 154 of the Act instead of filing appeal under section 246A of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) the assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned AR before us contended that there is no denial under the provisions of the Act to file an appeal against the intimation generated under section 143(1) of the Act. According to the learned AR, the learned CIT-A/NFAC should have admitted the appeal filed by the assessee and decided the issue on merit. Thus, the learned AR prayed before us to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT- A/NFAC for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

On the contrary, the learned DR raised no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the learned CIT-A/NFAC for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 246A of the Act gives right to the assessee to preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A, if aggrieved, against the intimation issued by CPC Bangalore under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant extract of the provisions of section 246A of the Act reads as under: (1) Any assessee or any deductor or any collector aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against— (a) an order passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 115VP or an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act or an intimation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143 or sub-section (1) of section 200A or sub-section (1) of section 206CB, where the assessee or the deductor or the collector] objects to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed;

In view of the above, we hold that the learned CIT-A/NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal preferred by the assessee on merit. Accordingly we set aside the issue to the learned CIT-A/NFAC to decide the grievance raised by the assessee on merit as per the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.

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