Sri Digambar Jain Mumukshu Mandal, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-4, Hyderabad

ITA 1892/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7157 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 10B; 143(1); 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1892/HYD/17 2013-14 SRI DIGAMBAR JAIN MUMUKSHU MANDAL, SECUNDERABAD [PAN: AAJTS0068D] INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-4, HYDERABAD 1893/HYD/17 2014-15 2231/HYD/18 2016-17 I NCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI AJAY GANDHI, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI KIRAN KATTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28-03-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-04-2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : ALL THESE ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE AYS. 2013-14 , 2014-15 & 2016-17. SINCE ALL THE APPEALS ARE OF THE S AME ASSESSEE AND ARE ON THE SAME ISSUE, ALL THESE APPLICA TIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED-OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TR UST, FORMED BY TRUST DEED DATED 01-07-1985. THE TRUST SOU GHT REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] ON I.T.A. NOS. 1892, 1893/HYD/17 & 2231/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: 15-10-1985. IT IS STATED THAT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE SA ID APPLICATION AND MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INC OME TAX RETURNS FOR THE AYS. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 RESPE CTIVELY, CLAIMING EXEMPTION FOR MINIMUM THRESHOLD AS PER THE RA TES OF TAX APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED COMMUNICATION U/S. 139(9), DT. 05-08-2015 FROM CPC INDICATING AS UNDER: - THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS 2 LAKHS AND AUDIT FLAG IS NO - 2.1. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B ON 01-09-2015 TO CURE THE DEFECT POI NTED OUT BY THE CPC. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE AT AND AN INTIMATION DT. 15-01-2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE C PC, WHEREIN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF APPLICATION FOR REVENUE UTI LISED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST CLAIMED IN ITR AS A DEDUCTI ON WAS DISALLOWED AND THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX WAS A PPLIED. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, ELECTRONICALLY ON 17-05-2016, REQUESTING FOR CORR ECTION OF THE ERRORS IN THE INTIMATION U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. VID E COMMUNICATION DT. 02-06-2016, THE CPC REJECTED THE REQ UEST FOR RECTIFICATION. HOWEVER, IT WAS STATED THAT DUE TO TECHNICAL REASONS, THE RECTIFICATION RIGHTS IN ASSESSEES CAS ES ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAME. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, NO FORMAL COMMUNICATION WAS REC EIVED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING ITS 154 I.T.A. NOS. 1892, 1893/HYD/17 & 2231/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: APPLICATIONS AND SUBSEQUENTLY, ON VERIFICATION OF THE I T PORTAL, IT CAME TO KNOW THAT THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST WAS REJECTE D ON 01-12-2016, BUT NO FORMAL COMMUNICATION OR INTIMATION WAS RECEIVED TO THIS EFFECT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT(A), SEEKING A DIR ECTION FOR DISPOSAL OF ITS APPLICATIONS U/S. 154. THE CIT(A), H OWEVER, REJECTED THE SAME AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEA L BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 14-03-2019, THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CPC DT. 02-06-2016 AND ALSO THE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE IT PORTAL WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT ON 01-12-2016, RECTIFICATION REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECTED THE LD.DR TO GET INSTRUCTIONS ON THESE DOCUMENTS AND ALSO TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THE ORDER S REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 OF THE A CT. 3.1. TO-DAY I.E., ON 29-03-2019, LD.DR HAS FILED CO PY OF THE LETTER DT. 20-03-2019, STATING THAT NO RECTIFICATION ORDERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT WERE PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDE RABAD FOR ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSE E. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS ALSO NOT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO AY. 2013-14 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTION U/S. 1 1 OF THE ACT IN ANY OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SCREEN SHOTS OF TH ESE PARTICULARS ALONG WITH THIS LETTER ARE ALSO FILED BEFO RE US. THUS, I.T.A. NOS. 1892, 1893/HYD/17 & 2231/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: IT IS SEEN THAT THERE ARE NO ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 OF THE A CT. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH ALL THE MATERIAL AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE NECESSARY FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT ELECTRONICALL Y AND THE CPC, WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS REJ ECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE MA TTER IS BEING REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, CPC IS A MACHINE AND THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT HAVE GIVE N NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPLICATIONS U /S. 154 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS REFERRED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS PASSE D ANY ORDERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, BUT THE IT PORTAL CONTAINS THE INFORMATION THAT, VIDE ORDERS DT. 01-12-2016, RECTIFIC ATION REQUEST WAS REJECTED. FROM WHERE THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN FED INTO THE IT PORTAL IS NOT KNOWN. 4.1. HOWEVER, ALL THIS MIS-INFORMATION HAS LED THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO AT-LEAST COULD HAVE VERIFIED THE FACTS BUT HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS LEAVING THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THIS TRI BUNAL BY PAYING COURT FEE OF NEARLY RS. 10,000/- EACH FOR THE AYS. 2014- 15 & 2016-17 AND RS. 8,837/- FOR THE AY. 2013-14. T HUS, IT IS SEEN THAT WITHOUT ANY FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DRIVEN FROM PILLAR TO POST CAUSING MENTAL AND PHY SICAL STRESS INCLUDING FINANCIAL BURDEN. WE HOPE THAT THE I.T.A. NOS. 1892, 1893/HYD/17 & 2231/HYD/2018 :- 5 -: DEPARTMENT WILL LOOK INTO THESE ASPECTS AND CORRECT TH E SYSTEM AND PLACE STANDARD PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS SUCH GRIEVAN CES OF ALL SUCH ASSESSEES. 4.2. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE RELEVANT JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DEEM IT FIT AND P ROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE JURISDICTIONA L ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIV ING THE ASSESSEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE CONS IDERED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH APRIL, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 5 TH APRIL, 2019 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 1892, 1893/HYD/17 & 2231/HYD/2018 :- 6 -: COPY TO : 1. SRI DIGAMBAR JAIN MUMUKSHU MANDAL, SECUNDERAB AD. C/O. GANGHI & GANDHI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 1002, PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-4, HYDERAB AD. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (APPEALS)-9, HYDERABAD. 5. CIT-EXEMPTIONS, HYDERABAD. 6. PR.CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 7. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 8. GUARD FILE.