Manoj Kumar Umang Kumar (HUF), Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 251/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59631 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K JAIN
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE , /AND . . , ) [BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM] / I.T.A NO. 251/KOL/2012 ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MANOJ KUMAR UMANG KUMAR (HUF) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, WD-35(4), KOLKATA (PAN: AACHM4661B) ( $% /APPELLANT ) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 12.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2012 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M. K. JAIN FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI D. J. MEHTA ( / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , ) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF O RDER OF CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.74/CIT(A)-XX/WD-35(4)/09-10/KOL DATED 21.10.2011 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O., WARD-36(3), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.12.2 008. 2. THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 18 DAYS. CONDONAT ION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE REASONS FOR DELAY IS THE KARTA OF HUF SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN WAS BUSY WITH MEDICAL TREATMENT OF HIS WIFE SINCE 1 0 TH JANUARY, 2012 AND SHE WAS ULTIMATELY ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF HOSPITAL IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE FILE. HENCE, HE URGED BEF ORE THE BENCH TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. LD. DR AS SUCH D ID NOT HAVE RAISED OBJECTION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE CONDONE THE DE LAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 88E OF THE ACT. FO R THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 1: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING OF NOT ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 88E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RS.22,338/- WIT HOUT ANY BASIS FOR THE REASONS THAT ITA 251/K/2012MANOJ KUMAR UMANG KUMAR (HUF), A.Y.06-07 2 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A TRADER IN SHARES AND HAVE NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF CLAIM OF SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT ). THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,000/- AS INTEREST PAID AS SAM E ALREADY HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED U/S. 14A OF THE ACT FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.2,000 AS INTEREST PAID AS SAME ALREADY HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED U/S. 14 A OF THE I. TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE SAME EXPENSES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED TWICE WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS AND BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE IN A PROPER MANNER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 1 43(3) ON 26.12.2008 AND ASSESSEE WANTED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST AND CLAIM OF STT REBATE BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED VIDE HIS RECTIFICATION APPLICATI ON DATED 09.07.2009 U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE GROUND OF APPEAL ONLY ON ONE PREMISE THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC FINDINGS BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONS AND THESE ISSUES ARE BEYOND THE PURVIEW AND SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NO RECTIFICATION CAN BE CARRIE D OUT BY THE AO. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND EVEN NOW BEFORE US ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT HOW THERE IS MISTAKE, WHICH IS APP ARENT FROM RECORD AND WHICH IS FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE AS THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPEAL AGA INST THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- [ .. , ] [ , ] [ C.D.RAO ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE: 12.03.2012. R.G.(.P.S.) ITA 251/K/2012MANOJ KUMAR UMANG KUMAR (HUF), A.Y.06-07 3 ( . &/ 0/'1- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . MANOJ KUMAR UMANG KUMAR (HUF), P-21/22, RADHA BAZAR STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 2 THE I.T.O.-WARD-35(4), KOLKATA 3 . THE CIT, KOLKATA 4. CIT(A)- KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ' / &/ TRUE COPY, ( 8 / BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES