Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order ofld. CIT(A)-5, Bangalore dated 07.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.19,71,980/- on the facts of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in assessing the appellant's income at Rs.19,71,980/- without giving the relief of standard deduction of 23,300 USD allowed by Federal Government of USA on the facts of the case.
4. The learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the standard deduction claimed by the appellant of 23,300 USD from the income earned in USA as was allowed by the Federal Government of USA on the facts of the case.
5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had filed a rectification application computing the income at Rs.12,53,966/- which was not considered by the assessing officer, therefore the action of the learned CIT(A) in stating that the appellant himself had declared an income of Rs.19,71,980/- is factually wrong on the facts of the case.
The authorities below further failed to take cognisance of the submissions made by the appellant on the facts of the case.
The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice, the interest levied under sections 234A and 234B ought to have been waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urgedabove.
In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that there are apparent mistakes in the assessment order and for the rectification of the same, the assessee has filed a petition for rectification before the AO u/s. 154 on 28.04.2016, copy available on pages 29 and 30 of paper book. He submitted that till date, this petition for rectification u/s. 154 is not disposed of by the AO. He submitted that either the present appeal of the assessee should be kept pending till this petition of assessee u/s. 154 is disposed of by the AO or the issue involved in this appeal may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the direction that contentions raised by the assessee in this petition dated 28.04.2016 u/s. 154 should also be considered while deciding the issue afresh. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. I find that as per ground no. 3 of the appeal raised before the Tribunal, this is the claim of the assessee that the assessee is entitled for standard deduction of 23,300 USD allowed by Federal Government of USA and in the petition dated 28.04.2016 filed by the assessee before the AO u/s. 154 of IT Act also, the same contentions are raised for allowing standard deduction of 23,300 USD. As per the ld. AR of assessee, this petition of assessee filed before the AO u/s. 154 is still pending and hence, I feel it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the direction that while framing the assessment afresh, the AO should decide this aspect of the matter also in respect of allowability of standard deduction of 23,300 USD as claimed by the assessee. I order accordingly. Needless to say, the AO should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee and should pass a speaking and reasoned order. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage and hence, I do not make any comment on the merit of the case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.