SAMVEG BHANDARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM :
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 05.06.2023 arising from order passed by the CPC u/s 154 r.w. section 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity on plea of appeal filed with delay while
ITANo.291/Ind/2023 Samveg Bhandari appeal was filed on time as rectification order under section 154 served on appellant 08.11.2022 and appellant have filed appeal dated 09.11.2022 but Hon'able CIT(A) rejected the appeal without looking to the date of attached rectification order passed by CPC Bangalore on the plea of date of order mentioned in appeal memo as 02.08.2022 which was date of filing of rectification u/s 154. Thus rejection of appeal is illegal and against of law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the rejection to rectification application filed against Intimation passed U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, was correct without allowing any reasonable opportunity. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was clearly wrong in holding to the adjustment for addition of Rs. 5,11,862/- in the returned income of the appellant made by AO on the plea of mismatch between the income reported in clause 16(d) of tax audit report and income tax return even of AO of CPC was not authorized to make such adjustment u/s 143(1) because appellant already suo moto offered such alleged Income. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) for confirming the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act is invalid because the assesse was never granted any opportunity of being heard against such rejection of application u/s 154 of the Act of the assessee even alleged interest Income was already offered for tax as other income in Computation of Income and erred in holding that the mistake is not apparent from the records. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has acted against in law in confirming the action of the AO, CPC who twice added to the already offered income in computation of Income hence filed rectification application even wrongly rejected and then confirming to application of mistake u / s 154 of the Act. 6. On facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was wrong in confirming to interest levied at Rs. 10, 192 / (- u) / s * 234B and Rs. 3, 217 / (- u) / s * 234C 7. That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed.
Page 2 of 6
ITANo.291/Ind/2023 Samveg Bhandari 8. Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse being barred by limitation whereas the appeal of the assessee was filed within the time limit against the order dated 08.11.2022 passed u/s 154 of the Act. Ld. AR has submitted that the CIT(A) took the date of order passed u/s 154 as 2nd August 2022 which is the date of filing the petition by the assesse u/s 154 and not the date of order which is 08.11.2022. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that due to the typographical mistake in the form 35 the CIT(A) has treated the appeal of the assesse as barred by limitation whereas the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
Ld. AR has further submitted that in the return of income the assessee has offered income from other sources of Rs.5,11,862/-. The CPC while processing return of income u/s 143(1) has added the same amount again to the business income of the assessee which has resulted double taxation of the said income of Rs.5,11,862/-. He has referred to the return of income as well as the order passed u/s 143(1). He has pointed out that to rectify the said mistake of double taxation of the said income the assesse filed a petition u/s 154 of the Act before CPC which was disposed off vide order dated 08.11.2022 but the mistake was not rectified in the said order and therefore, the assesse filed the appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that it is a case of double Page 3 of 6
ITANo.291/Ind/2023 Samveg Bhandari taxation of the said amount of Rs.5,11,862/- and further the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation by taking incorrect date of order passed u/s 154 of the Act.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that since it is matter of addition made by the CPC allegedly of the income already offered to tax under the head income from other sources therefore, this fact is required to be verified at the level of the AO. He has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO to verify and examine the claim of the assesse and then decide the same. As regards the limitation for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) the Ld. DR has fairly stated that due to mistake in form 35 the CIT(A) has treated the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation.
We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the CPC has passed order u/s 154 of the Act on 08.11.2022 on a petition filed by the assessee dated 2nd August 2022. The CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine has taken date of order as 2nd August 2022 which is an apparent mistake from the record. We further note that prima facie the assessee has offered an income of Rs.5,11,862/- under the head income from other sources and income from business and profession of Rs.5,17,534/- total amounting to Rs.10,29,396/-. The CPC while processing return of income u/s 143(1) has assessed the total income of the assessee at
Page 4 of 6
ITANo.291/Ind/2023 Samveg Bhandari Rs.15,41,258/- by making an addition of Rs.5,11,862/- to the business income of the assessee. Thus, it appears that there is an addition made by the CPC of the same amount of income which was already offered to tax by the assessee under the head income from other sources. However, this aspect requires proper verification and examination at the level of the AO. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the matter is remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO for proper verification and examination of the fact regarding the addition made by the CPC while processing return u/s 143(1) which has resulted double taxation of the same income of Rs.5,11,862/- already offered by the assessee to tax under the head income from other sources. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06 .02.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore,_ 06.02.2024 Patel/Sr. PS
Page 5 of 6
ITANo.291/Ind/2023 Samveg Bhandari Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 6 of 6
