Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 604/JP/2019
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A), Kota dated 8-02-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1 That on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the detailed oral and written submissions made and the evidence adduced the order of the ld. Lower Authorities is against the law and facts of the case.
2. That the ld. Lower Authorities erred in disallowing depreciation on building of Rs,4,62,524/- used for her business purpose thus resulting an additional tax liability of Rs.1,69,460/- while brushing aside the fact that depreciation has been claimed and allowed in preceding and succeeding assessment year relevant to the year under consideration.
3. That the ld. Lower Authorities also erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of Rs.s21,712/- and Rs.9,018/- respectively.
2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee did not press the Ground No.
Hence, the same is dismissed being not pressed. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’6…… In this case, the assessee filed ITR for the A.Y. 2013-14 with assessed income of Rs.33,52,380/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 20-07-2014. The assessee submitted an application dated 08-07-2017, requested to allow the loss on depreciation on building which was claimed in the ITR and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand of Rs.1,56,972/- raised on processing of ITR u/s 143(1) dated 20-07-2014. I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee and found that the loss claim in the ITR for the A.Y. 2013-14 has already been taken into account. The interest calculated by the system and pre-paid taxes as claimed by the assessee in the 3 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS ACIT, KOTA return has been taken into account correctly. There is no defect in the demand raised on processing of ITR. Hence, the submission of the assessee is not accepted on merit of the case, hence is hereby rejected.
I have gone through assessee’s submission and AO’s findings. On the available facts on record, the appellant has not been able to confirm that the disclosures made in the return were wrongly picked up or missed out while the return was processed u/s 143(1). The AO has only denied the relief in the absence of any such clear cut evidence. Under the circumstances, I am not convinced that there was any mistake in the processing of the return u/s 143(1) and the AO while passing the order based on the same rejecting the appellant’s petition u/s 154. These grounds of appeal are treated as dismissed.’’ 3.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the present appeal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had challenged the order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the ld. CIT(A). From the records, the Bench finds that the assessee had filed the Income Tax Return for the year under consideration with assessed income of Rs.33,52l,380/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20-07-2014. Thereafter, the 4. SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS ACIT, KOTA assessee submitted an application dated 08-09-2017 with a request to allow the loss on depreciation on building which was claimed in the Income Tax Return and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand of Rs.1,56,972/- raised on processing of Income Tax Return u/s 143(1) dated 20-07-2014. From the material placed on record, it is found that the assessee has not been able to confirm that the disclosures made in the return were wrongly picked up or missed out while the return was processed u/s 143(1). The AO had only denied the relief in the absence of any such clear cut evidence and the ld. AR has also failed to point out as to what was the mistake committed by the Revenue Authority while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not filed any appeal against the relief denied to the assessee but at the same time the assessee could not point out the mistake committed by the Revenue Authority. In this situation, the Bench does not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee which is dismissed. 4.1 The Ground No. 3 of the assessee is regarding charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of Rs.21,712/- and Rs.9,018/- which is consequential in nature.