DR. ASHOK JOHN,MUNGELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/RPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 April 2023AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rectification application was indeed filed beyond the stipulated time period as provided in Section 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the dismissal of the application by the lower authorities was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to claim depreciation that was disallowed during the processing of his return under Section 143(1). The Assessing Officer dismissed the application as it was filed beyond the four-year time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether a rectification application filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 154(7) of the Income-tax Act is maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.04.2023Pronounced: 17.04.2023

आदेश / ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.11.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 18.07.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts.

2.

The ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the rectification application when the rights of rectification were transferred to him which was filed within the time limit.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering my rectification application for requesting allowances of depreciation which has been disallowed by CPC 5. CIT(A) erred in not considering CBDT circular no.14 dated 1955.

4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon’ble appellate authority.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring an income of Rs.3,07,150/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act wherein his claim for depreciation of Rs.4,67,247/- was not considered.

3 Dr. Ashok John Vs. ITO-2(2), Bilaspur

3.

Aggrieved the assessee had filed a rectification application u/s.154 of the Act on 31.01.2018. As the rectification application was filed by the assessee beyond the stipulated time period of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed, therefore, on the said count itself the same was dismissed by the A.O vide his order dated 18.07.2018.

4.

Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.

5.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance before me, therefore, I am constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities the assessee had filed a rectification application u/s.154 of the Act on 31.01.2018 i.e. much after lapse of four years from the end of the financial year in which intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 13.12.2010 was issued by the A.O. As the aforesaid application was filed by the assessee u/s.154 of the Act beyond the stipulated time

4 Dr. Ashok John Vs. ITO-2(2), Bilaspur period as provided in sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act, therefore, in my considered view the same was rightly held by the A.O as not maintainable. For the sake of clarity sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act is culled out as under:

“(7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of Section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed].

7.

I, thus, finding no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities who had rightly dismissed/sustained the dismissal of the application filed by the assessee u/s.154 of the Act uphold the same.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced in open court on 17th day of April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →