Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“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.
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.
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
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.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.04.2024.