NIYATIBEN ALPESH PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order u/s. 250 dated 12-01-2024 of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (in short ‘the JCIT(A)’) for Assessment Year 2021-22.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessee has filed her return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs. 4,89,490/- and as per return refund of Rs. 5,99,320/- was due to the assessee. The return was processed by the CPC and as per intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 29-03-2022 and refund of Rs.6,35,280/- was determined. However, the assessee did not receive the refund as determined in the intimation. Subsequently, the assessee had received an intimation u/s. 245 of the Act dated 17th November, 2023 whereby the net amount refundable to the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,89,035/- only. Aggrieved with the reduction in refund, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was decided vide the impugned order. The ld. JCIT(A) held that the appeal of the assessee was not maintainable u/s. 246 of the Act. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

In the present appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “

The ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that he has no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the correct facts about the outstanding demand and thereafter decide the matter.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is found that the ld. JCIT(A) has taken a hyper technical approach by dismissing the appeal on the ground that no adjustment was made by the CPC in the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 29-03-2022. If the refund as determined by the CPC in the intimation was not issued to the assessee and was withheld for undue long period without any valid reason, the assessee had a genuine grievance and same was required to be properly addressed. It is found from the copy of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act that the CPC had determined refund of Rs. 6,35,280/-. However, a refund of Rs.1,89,035/- only was determined in the subsequent intimation u/s. 245 dated 11th Nov, 2023 after Page No. 4 Niyatiben Alpesh Paresh vs. Dy. CIT adjustment with the existing demand. A copy of intimation u/s. 245 is reproduced below:- Status Refund adjusted Against demand(s) Reference Intimation u/s 245 CPC/2122/G8a/208374776 dated 31-10-2023 Date of Communication 11-Nov-2023 Your return for the A.Y. 2021-22 has been processed on date 29-03-2022 determining a refund of Rs. 635280. The said refund is adjusted against the following outstanding demand(s). Sl. Demand Demand Order Sect Taxpayer’s AO’s Amount N A.Y. Amount Identification Date ion Response Response of o. Number Adjust ment 1 201 172 20162016370465 15-10- 143 No Response Collecta 373393 6- 18740T 2016 1a ble 17 2 201 28330 20232016372160 24-12- 143 No Response Collecta 2600 4- 26771T 2016 3 ble 15 3 201 55995 20232014372160 10-11- 220 No Response No 55995 6- 26605T 2023 (2) Response 17 4 201 14257 10-11- 220 No Response No 114257 4- 2023 (2) Response 15 Net Amount Refundable 189035/- Refund Sequence No 9387968815 6.1 It appears that no opportunity was provided to the assessee before passing of adjustment order u/s 245 of the Act by the CPC, which is against the principle of natural justice. Further, it is found from the above intimation that the demand for A.Y. 2016-17 (serial no. 1) was Rs. 172/- only whereas the amount of adjustment made was Rs.3,73,393/-. There is similar discrepancy in the amount of demand and the amount of adjustment in serial no. 2 as well. These discrepancies were required to be addressed which are apparent from the intimation u/s. 245. Further, it is also not evident as to whether any interest u/s. 244 was allowed to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.