The Ranuj Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited, Patan V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

ITA 1885/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT P SANDESWARA
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 154

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.1885/AHD/2018 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2010-11 THE RANUJ NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. AT POST RAHUJ, TAL. PATAN PAN : AADFT 0660 J. VS. ITO, WARD - 3 MEHSANA. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT P. SANDESWARA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI R.R.MAKWANA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24/05/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/06/2021 !'/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 20 10-11. 2. ONLY ONE GROUND IS RAISED IN THE APPEAL, WHICH A LSO CONTAINS SUB-GROUNDS. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR DETERMINING ASSESSED INCOME, THE BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN TAKING FIGURE OF INCOME COMPUTED UNDER SEC TION 143(1) AS RETURNED INCOME BY THE CPC, INSTEAD OF INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD.AO HAS TAKEN INCOME OF RS.37,66,259/- ASSESSED BY THE CPC UNDER SECTION 143(1) AS RETURNED INCOME, INSTEAD OF RS.32,01,150/ - RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. ITA NO.1885/AHD/2018 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2010 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.32,01,050/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 6.5.2011 BY CPC, BANGALORE DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.37,66,260 AND RAISED THE DEMAND OF RS.2,10,030/-. THEREAFTER , THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT O RDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 30.11.2012 IN WHICH RETURNED I NCOME WAS TAKEN AT RS.37,66,260/- AND DETERMINED ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.40,20,286/- BY MAKING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,54,026/-. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3), THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS APPARENT ERROR IN C ONSIDERING THE FIGURE OF RETURNED INCOME WHILE COMPUTING ASSESSED INCOME AS PER SECTION 143(3). THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATI ON UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WITH A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE INCOME RE TURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.32,01,05 0/- INSTEAD OF INCOME ASSESSED BY THE CPC UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.37,66,259/- FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECT ION 143(3). THE LD.AO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2017 UNDER SECTION 154 REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION . THIS ORDER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER, BUT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTED AND HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.1885/AHD/2018 3 4. BEFORE ME, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS APPARENT, AND V ERY MUCH OBVIOUS AND PATENT ON THE RECORD. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAV E PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE ON MERIT, AND THEREFORE, THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE RECTI FIED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS VERY CRYPT IC, AND SIMPLY CONFIRMED ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT DEALING WITH MERI T OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBMISSIONS. THE AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 WAS WITHIN THE STATU TORY TIME LIMIT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION ON 20.1. 2017 AND THE TIME LIMIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE A CT WAS UPTO 31.3.2017. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME A T RS.32,01,050/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY THE CPC, BANGALORE UNDER SEC TION 143(1) AND ASSESSED AT RS.37,66,259/-. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE LD.AO HAS TAKEN THE INCOME OF RS.37,66, 259/- ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) BY THE CPC AS RETURNED INCOME, INSTEAD OF RETURNED INCOME OF RS.32,01,050/- DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN. THE LD.AO OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE FIGURE OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS RETURNED INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT ITA NO.1885/AHD/2018 4 INSTEAD OF ASSESSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1) A S RETURNED INCOME. THOUGH A DETAILED SUBMISSIONS HAS BEEN MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE, SUMMARILY AND IN A CRYPTIC WAY REJECTED THE SAME AN D CONFIRMED ORDER OF THE LD.AO. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER ED THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND SHOULD HAVE PASSED A N ORDER ON MERIT. ACCORDING TO ME THE MISTAKE IS SELF-EVIDENT, AND AP PARENT FROM THE RECORD. FOR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE F ILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154, WHICH WAS REJECTED B Y THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THI S FOUNDATIONAL FACT WAS NOT INQUIRED INTO BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, AND SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATI ON. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 ON 20.1.2017 AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 13.11.2012. RECTIFICATION OF AN ORDER CA N BE MADE WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASSED, THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CA SE PERIOD FOR FILING THE APPLICATION EXPIRES ONLY ON 31.3.2017, AND THER EFORE, APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 IS WITHIN THE LIM ITATION PERIOD. AS REGARDS, THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CONCERNED, AS STAT ED ABOVE, IS SELF- EVIDENT AND APPARENT ON FACE OF THE RECORD, AND THU S, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPL ICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I ALLOW APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE LD.AO TO CONSIDER THE INCOME DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1885/AHD/2018 5 IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHILE COMPUTING ASSESSED I NCOME UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH JUNE, 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) VICE-PRESIDENT