Shri Trilokbhai R.Parikh, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.Cent. Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1690/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1581 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAURYA SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: JYOTISH M SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1690/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI TRILOKBHAI R. PARIKH C/O. VINOD AND NARENDRA 101/102, SHAILY 9 NEHRU PARK SOCIETY, NR. OLD GUJARAT HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-9 V/S THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAVPP8964P APPELLANT BY : SHRI JYOTISH M. SHAH, A. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAURYA SHUKLA, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02-05-20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 -05-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.04.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011-12. ITA NO. 1690 /AHD/2013 . A.Y.2011-12 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSES SEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS PROCESSED AT CPC BAN GALORE, VIDE LETTER DATED 04.08.2012. WHILE PROCESSING THE AFOREMENTION ED RETURN, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80GGA WAS DENIED. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VE HEMENTLY STATED THAT THE DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COU NSEL THAT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CLAIM CANNOT B E DENIED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDING S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE CPC MADE U/S. 143(1A) OF THE ACT. 6. LET US FIRST CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143 (1A) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 143 (1) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, SUCH RETURN SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY:- (A) THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTE R MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS NAMELY:- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. ITA NO. 1690 /AHD/2013 . A.Y.2011-12 3 7. NOW LET US CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 80GGA UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTI ON IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1A)(II) REFERRED HERE INABOVE, THE RELEVANT SECTION 80GGA (3) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1), NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF AN ASS ESSEE WHOSE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER TH E HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS LET U S SEE THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IT COMPRISES OF :- (1) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 39,690 (2) INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION RS. 67 ,015/- (3) INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 1,01,76,043/- (4) INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS. 3,63,366 GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS. 1,06,46 ,114/- 9. FROM THIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. SINCE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSIO N. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80GGA(3) REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE WHICH CLAIM AMOUNT TO AN INCORRECT CLAI M AND, THEREFORE, HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1A)(II) MENTIO NED ELSEWHERE. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE RELEVANT PROVISIONS, WE DO FIND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. ITA NO. 1690 /AHD/2013 . A.Y.2011-12 4 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04 - 05 - 201 6. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD