AMIR K. MERCHANT, MUMBAI V. ACIT CPC, MUMBAI

ITA 1102/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75575 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1102/MUM/2012 : ASST.YEAR 2009-2010 AMIR K MERCHANT, 8 WINDSOR HOUSE, M K ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI- 400 020 PAN ANNPM0898G VS. THE ACIT CPC, BANGALORE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARESH P SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M L PERUMAL DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 19.02.2014 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 26.08.2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE, HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE HIM. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.4,17,511/- DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. H OWEVER, DUE TO SOME ERROR IN FILING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT COMPUTE THE SAID LOSS IN THE INTIMATION U/S. 143(1) SERVED BY THE AO. TH E ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE I.T.ACT, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILLED UP T HE RELEVANT COLUMN OF ITA NO.: 1102/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 BUSINESS LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL H OLDING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL AGAINST TH E INTIMATION WHERE THE ADJUSTMENTS U/S.143(1) HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO. TH E ASSESSEE IS THUS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE WHILE RELYING UPON SECTION 246A(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BROUGHT TO OUR AT TENTION THAT IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE CIT(A) HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL IN RELATION TO INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTION 143 OR SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A. MO REOVER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 246A, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO GOT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AND ADJUDICATE AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER MADE U/S. 154 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION MOVED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE HIM FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IS ERRONEOUS AND AGAIN ST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER I S HEREBY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/- SD/- (D KARUNAKARA RAO) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SA ITA NO.: 1102/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. CONCERNED MUMBAI 4. THE CIT (A) CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. THE DR, A - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI