Narendrakumar R Shah- HUF, Ahmedabad V. The CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 197/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Narendrakumar R Shah-HUF, who appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment orders for the years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The primary issue was the incorrect quoting of the PAN number in the income tax returns, which led to the refunds being issued under a different PAN. Despite the assessee's efforts to rectify this by returning the incorrect refunds and submitting an Indemnity Bond, the requests for reissuance of the refunds under the correct PAN were denied. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately verified the TDS claims with the correct PAN and directed a re-examination of the matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114305 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 244A; 143(1); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Narendrakumar R Shah-HUF 301-303, Soham II, Behind CP Chambers, Navrang School Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad PAN: AAGHN5345D (Appellant) Vs The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi Now, The ITO Ward- 5(2)(5), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 29-03-2023 Date of pronouncement : 24-04-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These four appeals are filed by the Assessee as against four appellate orders dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(1) dated 07.07.2020 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the ITA Nos: 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2008-09 I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 2 Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2005-06 to 2008-09. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Karta of HUF aged about 90 years. The assessee filed its Return of Income as follows: A.Y. Date of Filling Refund due 2005-06 31.08.2005 2,626 2006-07 30.10.2006 4,222 2007-08 30.07.2007 2,570 2008-09 29.07.2008 5,330 2.1. The assessee in his HUF capacity was holding PAN No. AAGHN5345D. However by oversight mistake, the assessee filed the above Returns of Income with wrong PAN No. of AALPV1470B. 2.2. The assessee filed various communications to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3) for non-receipt of refund dues to the assessee. Pursuant to the same, the assessee received refund vouchers in the PAN No. AALPV1417B (which belongs to one Mr. Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora, 301-303, Soham II, B/H C P Chambers, Navrang School Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009) refund of Rs. 3,690, 4,390, 3,350 and 5,700 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Thus the assessee vide its letter dated 11.05.2012 returned original refund orders and requested to issue fresh refund orders in the correct PAN Number of the assessee. 2.3. The assessee filed the above letter dated 11.05.2012 and got acknowledgement from ITO, Ward-10(3). One year thereafter, the assessee filed Indemnity bond stating that the wrong quoting of the I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 3 PAN Number and the refunds were issued in the wrong PAN Numbers which were returned to the ITO by the assessee. Therefore requested to issue fresh refund orders and indemnified, the President of India for any losses arising, if any, for issuing duplicate refund orders with applicable interest u/s. 244A for the above Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. There was no response from the Assessing Officer, so the assessee filed grievance petition at CPGRAMS. In response to the same, the grievance petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2020 as follows: “ The Range Head has reported that on verification from ITD/ITBA it is noticed that the assessee has not filed any ROI on PAN: AAGHN5345D pertaining to Narendrakumar R Shah (HUF) for A. Y. 2005-06 to 2008-09. The assessee has contended that he has not received refund for the above assessment years. Since, the assessee has not filed any return on the above PAN for the above Assessment Years, the question of getting refund do not arise. On perusal of the ITD, it is noticed that the ROI of the above A.Yrs. have been filed on PAN AALPV14178 and the refunds have accordingly been issued on the above PAN. Further, on perusal of the ITD system it is noticed that the PAN: AALPV14178 belongs to Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora resident of Sutharfali Chowk, near Kumar School Viramgam, which is a separate entity. Hence, the claim of the assessee is factually incorrect. The assessee vide letter dated 11.05.2012 received on 22.05.2012 has himself stated that he has quoted PAN AALPV14178 instead of AAGHNS345D which shows that the assessee has furnished wrong PAN in the various assessment years. Considering to the above facts, grievance is rejected and treated as disposed off.” 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A). The NFAC by this impugned order, dismissed the assessee’s appeal observing as follows: “...5.5. From submission of the appellant it appears that the appellant filed return of income of Narendrakumar Ramanlal Shah (HUF) but quoted PAN of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora. The return was processed, credit of TDS etc. was properly given and refund was issued in name of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora whose PAN was quoted in return of income. 5.6. Further, it appears that both entities are related entities and therefore the appellant had custody of other refund order as well. Here, a mistake was committed by appellant in quoting wrong PAN. A practical way of resolving the issue could have been that the appellant should have deposited refunds in bank A/c of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora and should have transferred money to bank account of appellant and appropriated entries could be passed in books of accounts. I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 4 5.7. Further, it also appears that self assessment tax/TDS/TCS was in PAN of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora therefore, refund was created in name of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora. 5.8. Here, in my humble opinion, section154 is to rectify mistake committed by concerned IT Authority and not by appellant. The appellant has option of filing revised return of income if any error is noticed. 5.9. In the instance case, no error is committed by AO. There is no error apparent from record. So these grounds of the appeal are DISMISSED.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate orders, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of appeal: 1.In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in rejecting grievance appeal. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not granting income tax refund of Rs 3,690. 4.In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not granting interest payable under section 244A of Income Tax Act. 5. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, till the appeal is finally heard and decided. 5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel Mr. Himanshu Shah reiterated the submissions made before the Lower Authorities and submitted in spite of the wrong refund orders and Indemnity Bond submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not granted refunds with appropriate interest to the assessee, who is a Super Senior Citizen. Therefore pleaded to allow the appeal and grant the refund with applicable interest u/s. 244A of the Act. 6. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the argument of the assessee and stated that the assessee I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 5 having quoted wrong PAN Numbers not eligible to claim the refund. Therefore the order passed by the Lower Authorities does not require any interference and the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is seen from the Paper Book filed by the assessee though the assessee has filed the Return of Income by quoting the wrong PAN Number, but when the refund orders were issued in the name of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora in January 2012, the same were returned by the assessee, highlighting the mistake in the PAN No. mentioned by the assessee. The assessee also returned the original refund orders to the Department. Thereafter has filed Indemnity Bond and requested to issue fresh refund orders in favour of the assessee. However the said request was denied on the sole ground that the assessee himself has quoted the wrong PAN Number and thus not eligible for refund claimed by the assessee. That Apart, Ld. NFAC held that both PAN Number persons are related entities, a practical way of resolving the issue could have been that the assessee should have deposited refunds in the bank account of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora and then should have transferred the money to the bank account of the assessee and appropriate entries could be passed in the books of accounts. It also appears that self-assessment tax/TDS/TCS was in PAN Number of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora, Therefore refund was made in the name of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora and thereby there is no mistake committed by the Assessing I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 6 Officer, therefore no apparent mistake on record and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 8. We have perused the Return of Income filed by the assessee. The assessee claimed the refund based on the TDS of Rs. 2,626 for the Assessment Year 2005-06, Rs. 4,222 for the Assessment Yeas 2006-07 and TDS 2,570 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 5,330 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The A.O. ought to have verified the claim of above TDS with which PAN Number. From perusal of records the A.O. has not verified in the above TDS. Alternatively, when the assessee has returned the original refund orders made in the name of Harshadrai Chaturbhai Vora and on filing of Indemnity Bond by the assessee, the Revenue ought to have refund the money to the assessee. In this case, we find that the authorities have not exercised both these conditions. Therefore in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS claim made by the assessee with appropriate PAN No or otherwise based on the Indemnity Bond, the assessee should be issued with refunds in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-04-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 24/04/2023 I.T.A Nos. 195 to 198/Ahd/2021 A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2008-09 Page No Narendrakumar R. Shah HUF vs. ITO 7 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद