Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre, Miraj, Sangli V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, , Bangalore

ITA 257/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi, which itself stemmed from an assessment order by the DCIT, CPC. The primary contention was the alleged unreasonable delay in filing the appeal and the incorrect denial of benefits under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay, which was not condoned by the CIT(A). Furthermore, the assessee contested the denial of benefits under section 11, claiming an incorrect appreciation of facts. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed any exemption under section 11 in their return, and thus, the DCIT(CPC) did not grant any exemption, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134308 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Revised return
• Section: 11; 143(1); 73

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.257/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj, Plot No.P-39, M.I.D.C, Miraj Sangli, Maharashtra – 416410. PAN: AABFL 4373 L V s The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 19/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/01/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], Delhi dated 10.12.2021 emanating from assessment order of DCIT, CPC dated 27.01.2012 under section 143(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the Delay in filing the appeal though there was reasonable cause for the delay. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on incorrect appreciation of facts. ITA No.257/PUN/2022 Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj [A] 2 The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal or add altogether a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. First of all, at the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, we heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue. 3. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. We find that even before this Tribunal also there was a delay of around 73 days. 4. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer(AO). 5. Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal of 73 days is condoned, as it was Covid Pandemic Period. 6. The DCIT(CPC) has passed an order under section 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the assessee. Assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the said order. There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 7 ½ years. The assessee submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the staff of the assessee who received the order under section 143(1) had not brought it to the notice of the office bearers of the assessee and hence there was delay in filing of appeal. The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.7 has decided not to ITA No.257/PUN/2022 Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj [A] 3 condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. However, in para 7 of his order, the ld.CIT(A) has without prejudice discussed the merits of the case and decided the appeals on merit also. Once the ld.CIT(A) has decided the case on merits, it means the ld.CIT(A) has condoned the delay, though in para 5.7 ld.CIT(A) mentioned that delay not condoned. However, the subsequent act of ld.CIT(A) deciding the case on merits upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. As mentioned in earlier para, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the record, it is observed that DCIT(CPC) has not made any disallowance or not added any income but has merely calculated the tax liability based on the return of income. The relevant part of the order under section 143(1) is reproduced here as under: Reporting Heads As Provided by Tax payer As computed Under Section 143(1) INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 54,93,373 54,93,373 LOSS OF PREVIOUS YEARS ADJUSTED 2,57,057 2,57,057 GROSS TOTAL INCOME 52,36,316 52,36,316 TOTAL INCOME AFTER DEDUCTIONS 52,36,316 52,36,320 AGGREGATE INCOME 52,36,316 52,36,320 ITA No.257/PUN/2022 Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj [A] 4 TAX ON INCOME AT NORMAL RATES 0 15,70,896 NET TAX PAYABLE 0 15,70,896 EDU CESS+SECONDARY & HIGHER EDU CESS 0 47,127 GROSS TAX LIABILITY BEFORE TAX RELIEF 0 16,18,023 NET TAX LIABILITY 0 16,18,023 234BINTEREST 0 1,61,800 234C INTEREST 0 59,866 TOTAL INTEREST LIABILITY 0 2,21,666 AGGREGATE INCOME TAX LIABILITY 0 18,39,689 NET AMOUNT PAYABLE 0 18,39,689 Thus, there was no wrong caused to the assessee. The Aggregate Income as per Tax Payer & as per order u/s.143(1) is same i.e. Rs.52,36,320/-. 8. It is apparent from the order under section 143(1) that assessee had not claimed any exemption under section 11 of the Act in the return of income. Since assessee had not claimed any exemption under section 11 of the Act, in the return of income, the DCIT(CPC) while passing the order under section 143(1) has not granted any exemption. In this scenario, we do not find any fault with the order of the DCIT(CPC) as the order of the DCIT(CPC) is based on return filed by the assessee. In the statement of facts filed before this ITA No.257/PUN/2022 Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Miraj [A] 5 Tribunal, the assessee has claimed that it has ironically filed return of income in Form No.5 whereas the form applicable for trust was Form No.7. If this is the fact assessee should have filed a revised return. However, assessee had not taken any action almost for seven and half years. Therefore, in these facts, we uphold the order of the DCIT(CPC) as the order is based on the return of income filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6 th January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 6 th Jan, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.