ARVIND PRABHAKAR BAJIRAO,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 376/NAG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 April 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 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 held that the issue of not granting tax relief under Section 90 was not an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 154. Such matters require detailed inquiry and should be pursued through regular appeal proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought tax relief under Section 90 based on a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with Canada. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued an intimation under Section 143(1) without granting this relief. The assessee then attempted to rectify this under Section 154.

What were the issues?

Whether a claim for tax relief under Section 90 based on a DTAA, not granted in an intimation under Section 143(1), constitutes an 'apparent mistake' rectifiable under Section 154.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.03.2024Pronounced: 17.04.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/ 1046044022(1), dated 28.09.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC, Delhi erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which in contrary to the material on record and provisions of the Act unjust and bad in law.

1.

2 ITA.No.376/NAG./2022 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru erred by not granting the tax relief u/s.90 of Rs.2,19,190/- being relief allowed as per DTAA between India and Canada, as per the grounds contained in the Intimation order or otherwise.

3.

On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, LD. NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against rectification order under section 154 although appellant has preferred appeal against Intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act. The issue of not granting of tax relief under section 90 of Rs.2,19,190/- was emanating from Intimation under section 143(1) and not from Rectification order under section 154 of the Act.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, modify and/or withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal, each of which are without prejudice to one another.”

3. Both the learned representatives next invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion. Holding sec.154 rectification herein as not maintainable as under :

3 ITA.No.376/NAG./2022

4 ITA.No.376/NAG./2022

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands and find no merit in the assessee’s action taking recourse to sec.154 rectification remedy. This is for the precise reason that sec.143(1) intimation dated 20.01.2022 had in fact proceeded on the basis of the assessee’s details submitted in his computation/return of income only as it is evident from the above extracted portion of the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel could hardly rebut the fact that the assessee had not declared all

5 ITA.No.376/NAG./2022 the relevant figures correctly in his return/computation which resulted in CPC’s intimation allegedly “processing” his return. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote T S Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that such an instance requiring detailed enquiries could not be taken as an apparent mistake deserving rectification u/sec.154 of the Act. I thus reject the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal with a rider that he shall be indeed at liberty to take recourse to regular appeal proceedings as per law, if so advised. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →