ANIL AGARWAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur/NFAC vide DIN & order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065447077(1) dated 6.6.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act:”) for the assessment year 2018-19.
The appeal is filed belated by 2 days before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted an affidavit along with a petition explaining the reasons in filing the appeal belatedly which are reproduced as under:
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 2 of 7
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 3 of 7
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 4 of 7
We have gone through the reasons explained by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly for 2 days although stated by assessee as 3 days and satisfied that there is a good and sufficient reason in
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 5 of 7 filing the appeal belatedly before this Tribunal and accordingly, we condone the short delay of 2 days and decide to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is an employee of M/s. Intel Technology India Private Limited. For the Assessment Year 2018-19 the Assessee had filed his return on 20-08-2018 declaring an income of Rs 1,28,67,350/- inclusive of dividend income of Rs.4,16,679/- on shares of parent company M/s. Intel Corp USA. Though the Assessee declared his income and claimed relief of Rs.1,04,169/- u/s 90 & 90A on the dividend income earned at USA the same was not taken cognizance of by the Department while passing the intimation dated 19.3.2020 u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, the Assessee was also denied credit of Rs.2,442/- being TDS made by HDFC Bank. These 2 denials have resulted in levy of interest u/s 234B of Rs.27,652/- and u/s 234(C) of Rs.2,593/- and accordingly total demand of Rs.1,36,860/- was raised. 3.1 Against the above intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred a rectification under the provisions contained u/s 154 of the Act. The AO/CPC passed the order of Rectification u/s 154 of the Act vide order dated 12.8.2020. Again, aggrieved by the order of AO/CPC dated 12.8.2020 the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 16.5.2024 had allowed the appeal in full for the assessment year 2018-19. 3.2 On the other hand, in the meanwhile, the assessee also went with a different appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 1.7.2020 on the same issue against intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 19.3.2020, wherein the NFAC/CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 6.6.2024 disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.1,04,170/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 8.8.2024.
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 6 of 7 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We are summarizing below the entire facts of the case by way of chart for ease of reference and understanding:
Asst. year 2018-19 Anil Agarwal
ROI Filed 20.8.2018
Intimation u/s Intimation u/s 143(1) 143(1) 19.3.2020 19.3.2020 Demand Demand Rs.1,36,860/- Rs.1,36,860/-
Order u/s 154 NFAC passed order u/s 250 dated 12.8.2020 on 6.6.2024 disallowing FTC of Rs.1,04,170/-
Appeal filed before Assessee filed 2nd appeal CIT(A) on 3.2.2021 before ITAT on 8.8.2024
CIT(A) passed Appeal heard on 9.9.2024 order u/s 250 on Infructuous as already 16.5.2024 CIT(A) allowed appeal allowing the preferred against 154 of the appeal Act vide order dated 16.5.2024. To be dismissed as infructuous
4.1 We are of the opinion that since the assessee’s appeal before ld. CIT(A) filed on 3.2.2021 was already decided on merit by passing order u/s 250 of the Act dated 16.5.2024 by allowing the appeal of the assessee, the present appeal before us needs no further adjudication and it becomes infructuous and hence dismissed as infructuous.
ITA No.1477/Bang/2024 Anil Agarwal, Bangalore Page 7 of 7
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th Sept, 2024
Sd/- SD/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 11th Sept, 2024. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
