Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12
Kanchan Kumar Mitra, K-2007, Vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), C.R. Park New Delhi, 110019 Amritsar. [PAN: ADGPM5054K] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None. Respondent by Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2022
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,Amritsar, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No. CIT(A)/ASR-2/10334/2018-19, date of order 03.06.2019, the
order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011-12.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax
I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12
Officer,Ward 4(3), Amritsar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/147of the
Act date of order 26.12.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. That the order passed u/s 144 by the Assessing officer is totally illegal, unjust arbitrary and opposed to the actual facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Amritsar has therefore erred in law and in fact in confirming the order passed u/s 144 which should have been annulled as the Assessing officer was not justified in law and in fact in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 which was never served on the assessee.
That the order passed u/s 144 by the assessing officer at Amritsar was out of jurisdiction as the assessee was not residing in his territorial judication and nor any notice u/s 144 was ever served on the assessee , the assessment framed u/s 144 was therefore bad in law and the learned CIT appeals has therefore erred in law and in fact in confirming the order and allowing relief on quantum only. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case the assessment order should have been annulled. The order passed u/s 144 may Kindly be quashed being illegal and uncalled for.
I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12
That learned CIT(A)-2, Amritsar has erred in law and in fact in not allowed deduction u/s 80C which was right claimed, and necessary evidence before her.
That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal during the hearing of appeal or earlier.”
The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a service man. He travelled
the world in different time during service period. The notice u/s 148 was originated
in the Amritsar and assessment was completed with addition of Rs.10,31,877/- in
the head of salary which was received from “Consulting Engineering Services
India Pvt. Ltd” and the deposit of cash amount to Rs.7 lace which was treated as
consulting income. Further the deduction u/s 80C was not allowed due to absence
of documents. The assessee had not filed his return during assessment year under
the appeal. But the ld. AO had credited the TDS amount of Rs.1,21,740/- during
computation of tax. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The
ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO.
Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
During hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is
taken up with the consent of ld. Sr. DR. The assessee first challenged that the
I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 4 Assessment Year: 2011-12
jurisdiction of the ld. AO about assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee had
filed a written submission withrunning pages 1 to 31 which is kept in the record. In
the paper book, the assessee submitted the PPF amount of Rs.70,000/- which is
eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 80C of the Act. But the ld. CIT(A) had not
taken cognizance during the appeal hearing. The jurisdiction of the AO was
challenged by the assessee. But, the assessee had not filed any petition by
challenging his jurisdiction before the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding.
Also during the appeal the petition for change of jurisdiction was not filed as per
the provision of the Act. The assessee staying in Delhi and the assessment was
completed in Amritsar. The issue was primarily not taken care by the ld. CIT(A)in
appeal proceeding. The ld. Sr. DR is only relied on the order of the revenue
authorities.
We heard the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and considered the documents
available in the record. The territorial jurisdiction of the assessee is not in Amritsar
but in New Delhi, as per the claim of assessee. But before any of the authorities the
assessee had not challenged its jurisdiction. Regarding deduction u/s 80C, the
assessee had filed a copy of the receipt as proof of payment of PPF which is
primarily showing the payment amount of Rs.70,000/-. In our opinion, the issue of
the assessee should be further adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). In view of these
I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12
discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we deem it fit and
proper to remit the matter to the first appellate authority after giving an opportunity
of hearing, for adjudication of jurisdictional ground &allowability of Section 80C
of the Act in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. No other
issue was challenged before the ITAT the order passed as per the terms indicated
above.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.539/Asr/2019 is
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.