AI Insights
The case involves Torrent Roofing Systems, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the rejection of their rectification application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The application was initially filed to claim a deduction under section 80IC, which was not allowed as the necessary Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income. The Tribunal heard the appeal in the absence of the appellant's representation and decided based on the submissions of the respondent's counsel and the facts on record.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114541 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-12-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
05-12-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
28-06-2022
Judgement Text
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. 145/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Torrent Roofing Systems Plot No. 5C and 5D, Industrial Area, Gagret [PAN: AAHFT 1660L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Hoshiarpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18, challenging therein the action of the CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO whereby rejecting the rectification application filed u/s 154 by the assessee for the claim of ITA No. 145/Asr/2022 Torrent Roofing Systems v. ITO 2 deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, in the absence of filing of Form No. 10CCB along with the return of income. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 ITA No. 145/Asr/2022 Torrent Roofing Systems v. ITO 3 grievance apropos order u/s.154 of Income Tax Act, 1961. He stated that 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). 5. 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. The delay in filing the appeal against the order u/s 143(1) may be condoned and assessee may be allowed to file appeal accordingly. ITA No. 145/Asr/2022 Torrent Roofing Systems v. ITO 4 6. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the claim of the deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act made by the assessee by way of rectification application filed u/s 154 is not permissible under law. She contended that the assessee’s claim has been primarily rejected u/s 143(1) wherein deduction under Chapter (VI)(A) was denied to the appellant and hence the appeal filed against the order of 154 dated 05.12.2019 is rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). In support, she placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) CIT v. Jaideep Industries dated 10 th April, 1989 (Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court) (ii) Pradeep Kumar Batra v. DCIT (in ITA No. 6384/Del/2019) (Delhi ITAT). 7. 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 ITA No. 145/Asr/2022 Torrent Roofing Systems v. ITO 5 deduction under Chapter (VI)(A) was denied. We find no perversity to the 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. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
