M.S.Fathima, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1884/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6419 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN JT CIT
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN F
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B/SMC, CHENNAI , !' # BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.1884/MDS/2016 $ % &'% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M.S.FATHIMA, NO.5-A, ELANGO STREET, KALAINGER ROAD PAMMAL, CHENNAI 600 075. [PAN: AAHPF 2205K] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-I(1), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) () * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.RAMAKRISHNAN, F.C.A ,-() * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SAGADEVAN, JT. CIT . & * / / DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 0' * / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.08.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 30.03.2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL C ONTESTING HER ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2008-09 VIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE DEFECT MEMO RAISED BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING INQUIRED IN THE MATTER, IT WAS EXPLAINED B Y THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THAT P RIOR TO AY 2009-10, THE 2 ITA NO.1884/MDS/2016 (AY 2008-09) M.S.FATHIMA V. ITO PRACTICE WAS TO ISSUE MANUAL CHALLANS WHICH DO NOT EXPRESSIVELY SHOW THE SUB HEAD UNDER WHICH THE APPEAL FEES, STATED TO BE PAID IN THE APPLICABLE SUM OF . 10,000/-, STANDS PAID IN THE PAYERS COPY. THE SAID DETAIL APPEARS ONLY IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE CHALLAN WHICH IS RETAINED BY THE PAYEE, SO THAT THERE IS NO MANNER IN WHICH IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE APPEAL F EE HAS BEEN PAID UNDER THE PROPER SUB-HEAD, I.E., OTHERS AND, THUS, MEET THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS, HE WOUL D FURTHER ADD, NO CASE ON MERITS IN-AS-MUCH AS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE U/S. 15, I.E., UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES, INCLUDES NOT ONLY THAT PAID BUT ALSO TH AT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYER (DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR), I.E., DUE FOR PAYMENT, OR RECEIVABLE AS AT THE YEAR-END. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WHILE IT MAY WELL BE THAT WHAT THE LD. AR STATES I S CORRECT, THE CHALLAN ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF . 10,000/-, CLAIMED TO BE PAID UNDER THIS SUB-HEAD OTHERS, IS INCOME TAX ON REGULAR AS SESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09. THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REGISTRY IS THUS VALID. WHILE IN THE NORMAL COURSE THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD BE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE ASSESS EE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE PAYMENT OF THE APPEAL FEE PER (SAY) A CERTIFICA TE FROM THE BANK THROUGH WHICH THE PAYMENT STANDS MADE, I.E., AS TO THE HEAD OF ACCOUNT UNDER WHICH THE SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I N VIEW OF THE CLEAR POSITION OF LAW, EVEN AS CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR, NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY DOING SO. AS APPARENT, THIS ALSO EXPLAINS THE AB SENCE OF ANY REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TIME (OPPORTUNITY) TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE. FURTHER STILL, THIS ASPECT WAS ALSO MADE CLEAR TO THE LD. AR IN-AS-MUCH AS AN ORDER OF MERITS IS APPEALABLE, WHILE THE IMPLICATIO N OF NON-REMOVAL OF THE DEFECT IS THE APPEAL BEING DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HERE IT MAY ALSO BE PERTINENT TO CLARIFY THAT WHERE THE SUM IS DEPOSITE D AS TAX ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT, AS REFLECTED IN THE PAYMENT CHALLAN ON RECORD, IT I S NOT POSSIBLE FOR EITHER THE 3 ITA NO.1884/MDS/2016 (AY 2008-09) M.S.FATHIMA V. ITO ASSESSEE OR EVEN THE REVENUE TO CHANGE THE SAME, AN D THE ASSESSEE WOULD STAND TO BE ALLOWED CREDIT FOR THE SAME AND, THUS, ADJUST ED AGAINST HIS TAX LIABILITY FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I AM CONSTRAINED TO DISM ISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS NOT ADMISSIBLE, BEING DEFECTIVE FOR WANT OF PAYM ENT OF THE APPEAL FEE. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSIO N OF THE HEARING . SD/- ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) !' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1! /DATED, AUGUST 17, 2017. EDN !2 * ,$/34 54'/ /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. ,-() /RESPONDENT 3. . 6/ ( )/CIT(A) 4. . 6/ /CIT 5. 4&78 ,$/$ /DR 6. 89% : /GF