SANJAY PATIL,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1239/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHIR VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law as the assessee had paid the entire tax under the IDS-2016 scheme before the notice was issued. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income under the IDS-2016 scheme and was asked to pay tax. The Assessing Officer treated the declared income as undisclosed income for AY 2017-18, believing the tax was not paid. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was justified when the assessee had paid the tax under the IDS-2016 scheme. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHIR VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep P Sathe – JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 22/08/2024Pronounced: 23/08/2024

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, dated 30.03.2024for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1) The order dated 30-03-2024 hearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1063699666(1) passed under section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble CIT[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Sanjay Patil[A] Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. C. I. T. (Appeals). NFA C, Delhi has erred in non-condoning the delay in presenting the Appellant even though sufficient cause was demonstrated beyond doubt. 3) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. C.I. T. (Appeals), NFA C, Delhi has grossly erred in passing the order under section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 without even affording a personal hearing to the Appellant to present its case. 4) The Essential element of IDS scheme 2016 which is the tax payment that is being totally ignored by the Learned Assessing Officer. 5) Non Consideration of submitted FORM 3 duly acknowledged by the Income Tax Authorities. 6) Non-reflection of Challans does not tantamount to non-payment of challans for considering the income declared as the income of A Y 2017- 2018. 7) The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 8) It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed”

2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No one had appeared for earlier hearing on 19/08/2024 . Hence, we proceeded ex-party.

Findings and Analysis : 3. We heard Ld.Departmental representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue and perused the records.

2 Sanjay Patil[A] 3.1 In this case it is observed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order that the Assessee had Declared Income of Rs.17,64,513/- for AY 2014-15 under IDS-2016. Form No.2 was issued to the assessee and assessee was asked to pay the Tax of Rs.7,94,032/- on or before 30/09/2017. In the Assessment order the AO observed that since assessee failed to pay the Tax of Rs.7,94,032/- , as per provisions of Section 187(3) & 197 of IDS 2016, Income of Rs.17,64,513/- was treated as Income of AY 2017-18, hence notice u/s 148 was issued in the case of the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings the Assessee filed a reply and submitted that entire Tax has been paid as per IDS 2016 scheme ,assessee also submitted copies of Challans as a proof of payments. Inspite of this the AO made addition of Rs.17,64,513/- as undisclosed income .Aggrieved by the Assessment order the Assessee filed appeal before the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, though in the Appeal Order, the ld.CIT(A) has reproduced assessee’s submission explaining details of tax paid under IDS- 2016 along with amount of Tax, Date of Payment, Challan Number, BSR code. Ironically, inspite of having all these details 3 Sanjay Patil[A] the ld.CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filling appeal. The chart of Tax paid appearing in the order of CIT(A) is as under :

% of Due date Date of Tax Tax Paid Challan BSR Total Payment Payable of of Rs. No Code Tax Rs. 50% 30/11/2016 2811/2016 132339.00 198508 52245 6910333 25% 31/03/2017 30/03/2017 132339.00 198508 61712 6910333 25% 30/09/2017 29/09/2011 529354.00 397015 46229 6360218 100% 794032.00 794031.00 3.2 During the last hearing on 19/08/2024, we had directed the Ld.DR for the Revenue to verify from the ITO regarding the payment of Taxes as claimed by the assessee in the grounds of appeal and whether the FORM Number 4 has been issued by the Commissioner of Income tax or not!. Ld.DR filed letter dated 20/08/2024 of the Income Tax Officer ward 2(1) Kolhapur along with the annextures. The letter of the ITO filed by the ld.DR is reproduced here under :

4 Sanjay Patil[A] 3.3 Thus it is observed from the Letter of the ITO and Form no.4, that the assessee has paid entire Tax of Rs.7,94,032/- before the specified date 30/09/2017. The Pr.Commssioner of Income Tax has issued the Form No.4 on 17/01/2024 vide Acknowledgement Number: 903280411170124. It means as per IDS-2016, the declaration of the assessee has been accepted by the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax as he has issued the Form No.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Sadhana R. Jain vs CBDT vide order dated 18 May 2022 that once the assessee has paid the entire tax and Interest (in that case there was 5 Sanjay Patil[A] delay in tax payment hence assessee was required to pay Interest) then the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme of 2016 (IDS).

4.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the Notice u/s 148 issued by the AO is bad in Law as at the time of issue of Notice u/s 148 the Assessee had paid the entire amount of Tax as provided in the IDS 2016. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the AO for issuing 148 were factually incorrect. In these facts and circumstances, we hold that the impugned assessment order is bad in law, accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.17,64,513/-.

4.1 Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result Appeal of the Assessee Allowed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →