TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEMS,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, `HOSHIARPUR

None appeared for the assessee, however, considering the issue of deduction claimed by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, we heard the Ld. DR and decided the appeal.

In facts, the appellant filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 27.10.2017, however he did not upload Form 10CCB along with the Return of Income. Later on, appellant e-filed Form 10CCB on 16/08/2018. The return was processed by CPC Bengaluru on 05.12.2018 wherein deduction under Chapter Vl-A was not allowed to the appellant. Hence, appellant filed rectification application under section 154 against this order, however no modification was made and income as per 143(1) was retained vide order u/s.154 dated 05.12.2019.

Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against order passed under section 154 by CPC Bengaluru who has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing that the grounds of appeals being agitated are primarily directed against order passed under section 143(1), wherein deduction under Chapter Vl-A was denied to the appellant, whereas appeal has been filed against order of 154 dated 05.12.2019. If there were further mistakes committed in recalculation, it would have been cause of further appellant’s case is tested on above observations, order under section 143(1) i.e., original order passed on 05.12.2018 continues where CPC Bengaluru had denied deduction under Chapter Vl-A. Order u/s.154 does not propose a further change in income from one which was determined while passing order u/s. 143(1).

In the grounds, the appellant assessee has raised objection to the action of the ld. CIT(A) containing in the grounds of appeal raised herein that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee on surmises in limine without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits on the issue of deduction claimed u/s 80IC by way or rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. He further contended that the assessee was under the bonafide belief and on the advice of the counsel filed the rectification instead of appeal, so just because of this reasons appeal is not filed against 143(1) and filed appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, and for want of justice it should not have been rejected in limine and should be heard on merits. The appellant has alternately raised plea that if the appeal is rejected against the order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act.

After hearing the Ld. Addl. CIT (DR) and considering the facts on record of the case, we find the undisputed fact that the appellant has claimed deduction u/s 80IC under Chapter (VI)(A) of the Income Tax Act by way of rectification application filed u/s 154 which is not permissible under law as the AO/CIT(A) is required to decide whether the appellant assesse is eligible for the aforesaid claim. In the case of ‘CIT v. Jaideep Industries’, dated 10th April, 1989 the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has adjudicated on the scope of Section 154 of the act. In the instant case, since the assessee’s claim has been primarily rejected u/s 143(1) wherein facts on record in the order of the CIT(A), and therefore, the impugned order is sustained. Alternative plea of the appellant does not pertain to present appeal. Hence, rejected as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.