UTI SPECTRUM FUND,MAURITIUS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3558/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2024AY 2019-20204 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had filed an application stating that the Assessing Officer had rectified the mistake in the intimation under section 143(1) by passing an order under section 154 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 29.07.2024. This rectification addressed the issue of the incorrect computation of Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) and the consequent demand. Since the grievance raised in the appeal before the ITAT was effectively resolved by the subsequent rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appeal had become infructuous. The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's contentions and, in view of the facts and circumstances, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the original grounds of appeal, as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, UTI Spectrum Fund, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily concerned the CIT(A)'s failure to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the time taken for resolution from the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC)/Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee contended that the delay was not deliberate and that the term 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally. The core issue stemmed from an intimation under section 143(1) where Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) were considered at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/-, leading to alleged double taxation. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal before the ITAT, stating that the Assessing Officer had rectified the mistake in the intimation under section 154 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 29.07.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2019-20, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not examining the appellant's case on principles of natural justice, considering the alleged double taxation of short-term capital gains in the intimation under section 143(1). Assessee's contentions: 1. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not deliberate and was due to delays in resolution from the CPC/AO. 2. The term 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. 3. The intimation under section 143(1) resulted in double taxation of STCG, as it was considered at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/-, and principles of natural justice were not followed. Revenue's contentions: No objection was raised by the Revenue's Senior AR to the withdrawal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S. & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Ms. Angha
For Respondent: Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi Sr
Pronounced: 08.10.2024

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): - 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 15.05.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 58, Page | 1 UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds:

1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal.

2. That on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was on account of delay in resolution to be provided by the Centralized Processing Centre ('CPC')/Assessing Officer ('AO') and thereby not attributable to the Appellant.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred to comprehend that the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice to the Appellant.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not examining the Appellant's case on principles of natural justice considering the fact that in the intimation u/s 143(1), short term capital gain has been considered at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- resulting in double taxation of the same income twice at different rates”.

3. Assessee vide its letter prayed for withdrawal of appeal in for A.Y.2019-20. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the contents of the said Application as under: - “With reference to the above captioned subject, we would like to inform that your honor has asked us to appear before the Hon'ble ITAT, 'SMC" Bench, Mumbai for an appeal hearing scheduled on 17- 09-2024. Page | 2 UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20 The Appellant had filed Return of Income ('ROI') u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2019-20 on 19-09-2019 declaring a total income of INR 19,00,460/-. Accordingly, the ROI was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre ('CPC") and thereby intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued dated 30-04-2020. As per the aforesaid intimation, the CPC has inadvertently considered the Short term Capital Gains ('STCG) at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- as computed in the ROI thus resulting in double addition of same income. Thus, determining a total income of INR 37,45,950/- and demand payable of INR 3,42,890/-. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(Appeals)] along with condonation for delay against the said intimation. However, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal rejecting the condonation of delay. Against the said intimation u/s 143(1), the Appellant apart from preferring appeal before the CIT(Appeals), also filed petition for rectification u/s 154 of the mistake in the said intimation. In this regard, please note that the Assessing Officer has rectified the said mistake by passing order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 29-07- 2024”.

4.

In view of the application, we have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. The Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the withdrawal of this appeal.

5.

We find considerable cogency in the contentions of Assessee as aforesaid. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the Appeal and accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal as withdrawn.

UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2024

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →