M/s Informatics (India) Ltd, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2685/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8777 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR S V
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I TA NO. 2 685 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 M/S. INFORMATICS (INDIA) LIMITED, NO. 194, R.V. ROAD, NEAR SOUTH END CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE 560 004. PAN: AAACI3561K VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR S.V., ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01 .0 7 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05. 0 7 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE DATED 04.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] AND THAT OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT, WAS BAD IN LAW AS THE MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ON A TOTAL INCOME ITA NO. 2685/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,50,83,104/- AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [APPEALS], AS AGAINST THE INCOME REPORTED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS. 6,39,12,580/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ONLY ONE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING RS.6,39,12,580/- AND THE SAID INCOMES ALONE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE FINANCIALS AND THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DEPICTED THE TRUE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A)WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN IGNORING THAT THE WORK SHEET FILED BEFORE THE AO WAS IN ERROR COMPARED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND THE WORK SHEET COULD NOT SUBSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING IT AS THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW, IN OBSERVING THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO, THOUGH ERRONEOUS, REFUSED TO SET RIGHT THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO, THOUGH IT WAS AN ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIATING THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.14(XL-35) DT:11/ 04/1955, WAS BINDING ON THE AO AND OUGHT TO HAVE ADVISED THE APPELLANT IN CASES WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO TAX CREDIT/ RELIEF OF THE TAX LIABILITY AND HAS PREFERRED NOT TO ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS PREFERRED TO ACCEPT THE WORK SHEET FILED, WHICH WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, AND OUGHT TO HAVE BROUGHT THE SAME TO THE ATTENTION 'OF THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE ORDERED THE AO TO ADOPT THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIATING THAT THE AO IN NOT PUTTING TO NOTICE THE ERROR IN THE DOCUMENTS FILED, HAS PASSED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW, IN APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ADOPTED WAS PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS AND WAS RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 12. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ERRED IN LEVYING THE INTEREST U/ S. ITA NO. 2685/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT AND THE SAME ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE QUANTUM, PERIOD AND RATE ARE NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 13. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 14. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE DATED 17.05.2018 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUBMITTED THAT AFTER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154, LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT IN COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF IT ACT AND THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND MAY BE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THIS SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 05 TH JULY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.