Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC, CHANDIGARH
Before: MS. DIVA SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 417/Chd/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) The DCIT, Circle Vs. M/s Techfab, Palampur Plot No. 3E, Phase-III Industrial Area, Sansarpur Terrace, Kangra(H.P.) PAN No. AAFFT9589 (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri. J.S. Bhasin Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Date of hearing : 20/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2018
ORDER PER DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated. 04/01/2018 of CIT (A), Palampur pertaining to 2009-10 A.Y. on the following grounds:
On the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,01,374/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. restored. 2. Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the assessment order. 3. The Authorized Representative of the assessee on the other hand inviting attention to the assessment order dated 02/09/2015 passed under section 147/143(3) submitted that all the necessary documents and the compliance in regard thereto were carried out by the assessee well within time. However the assessee could not e-file its return on time on account of the non availability of the PAN number. On account of this fact the reassessment proceeding have been made. It was his submission that admittedly the original assessment order dated 25/11/2011 was passed taking note of the fact that the assessee had e-filed its return on 30/03/2010. The CIT(A) taking note of the fact that the reopening was done after a lapse of four years wherein there was no failure on the part of
ITA 417/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 2
the assessee. The fact that the assessee had e-filed its return on the specific date has been noticed by the AO in the original order itself. Considering the fact the CIT(A) has noted that there was no new material before the AO as the fact that the return was filed on 31/03/2010 was evident from the original assessment order itself. Accordingly, in the circumstances, it was the prayer of the ld. AR that in these circumstances the reassessment order passed by the AO has been correctly quashed and the department’s appeal be dismissed.
It was his submission that infact the very ground of the department is not maintainable as no fresh material has been referred to by the AO. It is the very same facts as considered by the AO. The facts relatable to late filing of the return and reason thereof due to non-allotment of PAN to the assessee firm were available to the AO in the original proceedings also. The re-opening after four years thus, it was submitted, was not maintainable.
I have heard the submission and perused the material available on record.
I find on consideration thereof that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case admittedly there was no fresh material before the AO, the reassessment was done after a lapse of four years from the end of A.Y. and no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment has been referred to either by the A.O at the assessment stage or by the Sr. DR in the course of the arguments. Admittedly the fact that return was filed on 31/03/2010 was a fact available to the AO in the original proceeding itself which position of fact was relied upon by the assessee and evident from the order. In these circumstances the following findings of the CIT(A) challenged in appeal, I am of the opinion have no merit. In the absence of any argument, fact or reason justifying the allowability of the ground, I find the appeal has no merit. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) stands unrebutted on record which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“ In the very first line of order under section 143(3), it is mentioned that he e-return was filed on 31/03/2010 declaring nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IC of Rs. 41,01,374/-. In para 3 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that the claim of the appellant for deduction was scrutinized in the light of provisions governing section 80ICk and the same was being allowed after examination of information and material placed on record, books of accounts etc. Subsequent to the above order under section 143(3), an order under section 154 was passed on 10/12/2014 in which the assessed income was taken at nil and the net amount payable was also taken at nil. Later on, notice under section 148 was issued on 19/03/2015 by recording reasons as mentioned above.”
ITA 417/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 3
6.1. It is seen that the fact that the return of income filed was beyond the due date specified under section 139(1) was definitely a subject matter of consideration available to the AO. The reason for the same being non- allotment of PAN has been advanced before the CIT(A) which has not been rebutted. Accordingly, I find that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the pre-condition of the first proviso to Section 147 for assumption of jurisdiction admittedly not being met the decision arrived at cannot be faulted. Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, either on reasoning or on conclusion drawn on facts as they stand. I find that the departmental appeal has no merit. The ground, accordingly, is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04.09. 2018.
Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER
AG/Poonam Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR
Asstt. Registrar ITAT Chandigarh