SHRI SANT GADGE MAHARAJ SUT GIRNI LTD,AKOLA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 , AKOLA

The assessee has raised following grounds:–

Facts in Brief:– The assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2018, declaring loss and no tax payable. The order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed accepting the returned income without any modification to the returned income. But, as per the computation sheet, the tax payable was shown at ` 2,62,054.

The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non– persuasion despite repeated opportunities were granted.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the regular assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 18/02/2021, wherein at Para–4, it has been noted that returned income has been accepted. However, Page–1 of the assessment order clearly indicates that the returned income is ` zero, shown at Col. No.13. Hence, the assessed income naturally will be ` zero. The ta computation attached along with assessment order had determined demand of ` 2,62,054, which was challenged in the first appellate proceedings wherein the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non–receipt of any response from the assessee. The order of the learned CIT(A) has not discussed the merits of ground raised.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the authorities below.

Having given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and having perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the peculiarity of the dispute and after considering the arguments of the parties in unison, normally, this case was fit for restoring the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. However, I have decided to adjudicate the issue on merit. Although, no addition was made in the returned income, yet, it is quite incomprehensible to understand as to how the total income of ` 12,03,040, has been arrived in computation sheet. The learned CIT(A) has decided the case on the basis of material on record, but it is surprising that he has ignored the glaring anomaly of computation of demand, which is to be done with reference to the assessment order. The learned Departmental Representative in his usual fairness admitted that the demand is flawed. Consequently, the demand of ` 2,62,054, being uncollectable is hereby quashed in limine. Thus, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) by allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2024