SHRI HARDEEP SINGH S/O SHRI BALVIR SINGH, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 28/ASR/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Hardeep Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, which upheld the addition of Rs. 24,30,000 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, following the assessee's inadvertent declaration of Rs. 27,00,000 as agricultural income instead of the correct amount of Rs. 2,70,000. The assessee, during the appeal, provided evidence including the ITR for A.Y. 2015-16 and bank statements to substantiate the correct income. The Tribunal, referencing various precedents and the CBDT circular, ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and quashing the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114965 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Ramco International, CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (p) Ltd., Siva Equipment (p) Ltd. vs. Assistant CIT & Anr., Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. Joint CIT, CIT v Natraj Stationery Products P Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J.S. BHASIN; WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN OF
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 250; 80IA; 139(1); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Hardeep Singh, S/o Sh. Balvir Singh, VPO Beas Pind, Adampur, Jalandhar. [PAN: HCYPS1808F] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-IV (2), Jalandhar. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.J.S. Bhasin, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Jalandhar, [in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal No.2/10211/18-19/CIT(A)-2/Jal, date of order 18.10.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2016- 17.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jalandhar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147of the Act date of order 27.12.2018. I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 03 days. Wherein, assessee has stated that delivered the appeal in his office on the same day and thereafter being Saturday and Sunday, thus resulting in delay of 03 days. The ld. Sr. DR has not made any objection for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay of 03 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return u/s 139(1) and agricultural income was declared in return amount to Rs.27 lacs. The return was processed and ld. AO had framed assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. The assessee’s mother was appeared and retracted the claim of assessee related agricultural income amount of Rs.27 lacs. The assessee claimed that the mistake was happened during filing of return and the agricultural income will be Rs.2,70,000/-. The balance amount ofRs.24,30,000/- (Rs. 27,00,000/- - Rs. 2,70,000/-) was wrongly casted by the return filler. The ld. AO had not accepted the assessee’s submission and the balance amount of agricultural income Rs.24,30,000/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Though the assessee accepted that the agricultural income of the assessee is 2,70,000/- not amount to Rs. 27,00,000/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3 4. During hearing, the counsel for the assessee placed written submission before the ITAT. The assessee claimed that the amount which was casted in the return was wrong the correct figure was Rs.2,70,000/-. In earlier year the assessee earned agricultural income for A.Y. 2015-16 amount of Rs.2,15,000/-& to substantiate the claim, the assessee has filed ITR for A.Y. 2015-16 in APB page no. 1. The assessee mentioned that there is no transaction in bank account related to excess amount of agricultural income amount to Rs. 24,30,000/-. The copy of the bank account of State Bank of India, Beas Pind,is annexed in APB page nos. 5 to 8. 4.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court which are respectfully reproduced as below: - CIT Vs. Ramco International (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H). Held: Deduction under s. 80-IB—Allowability of deduction—Claim not made in return but by way of separate application—Form No. 10CCB along with all details furnished in the course of assessment—Claim was entertainable even though not made by way of revised return. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (p) Ltd. (2012)349 ITR 336: Held: Appeal [CIT(A)]—Additional ground—Claim for deduction not made in the return—An assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 4 to raise additional claims before them—Appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed—CIT(A) and the Tribunal have held the omission to claim the deduction of Rs. 40,00,000 to be inadvertent—Both the appellate authorities held, after considering all the facts, that the assessee had inadvertently claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,00,000 paid after the end of the year in question—There is no reason to interfere with this finding—Assessee is entitled to the deduction in law is admitted and, in any event, clearly established—In the circumstances, the assessee ought not be prejudiced. Siva Equipment (p) Ltd. vs. Assistant CIT & Anr. (2020) 313 CTR (Bom) 787: Appeal [CIT(A)j—Additional ground—Claim not made in the return—Appellate authorities filed CITsdiction to deal with the additional grounds including those which were available when the original return was filed—CIT(A) has the jurisdiction to entertain the two additional grounds/claims raised by the assessee before him. Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. Joint CIT (2020) 423 ITR 426 (Bom) : I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 5 Held : Though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed, was duty bound to consider such claim. CIT v Natraj Stationery Products P Ltd reported in (2009) 312 ITR 22 (Del), where the deduction wrongly claimed under section 80IA, but available under section 80IB, in view of the bifurcation of s.80l into two sections viz: 80IA and 80IB w.e.f.1.4.2000, was held to be allowable to assessee, without filing of revised return inasmuch as the assessee had not made any ‘new claim’.” 5. The ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The para 4.3-page no. 4 is extracted as below: “During the appeal proceedings, the assessee has reiterated that he has earned Agriculture income of Rs. 2,70,000/- and has inadvertently declared agriculture income at Rs. 27,00,000/- in the return of income filed. It is stated that on a similar basis agriculture income for A.Y. 2015-16 was declared at Rs.2,15,000/-. It is stated that a clerical or inadvertent mistake in filing of return of income should not go against the assessee. It is observed that the assessee has declared income of Rs.27,00,000/- as Agriculture Income for rate purposes in the return of income filed. A mistake in the return of income could be rectified by the assessee by way of filing a revised return of I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 6 income. The assessee has not revised the return of income filed for A.Y. 2016-17 to rectify and reduce the income declared by him. In the absence of the revised return of income, the income declared by the assessee cannot be reduced. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. As a result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 6. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available on the record. The assessee had wrongly inserted the agricultural income for the A.Y. 2016-17 amount of Rs.27 lacs in place of Rs.2,70,000/-. In fact, no revised return was filed by assessee. The assessee retracted the claim of agricultural income and reduced the same. As per the evidence supplied by assessee that no such any cash transaction was reflected in bank related agricultural income. The ld. AO was also unable to substantiate the transaction amount to Rs.24,30,000/- as a genuine transaction of the assessee during the F.Y. The assessee’s claim is in accordance with' the provisions of law and gets support from the CBDT circular No. l4 (XL- 35) dated 11/04/1955, wherein it has been clearly stated that the officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is duty of the department to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in matter of claiming and securing reliefs. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee and the particular mistake can be rectified during the assessment proceeding also. The assessee did not claim any excess deduction or any exemption. Rather, the assessee has retracted his claim and requested to reduce I.T.A. No.28/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 7 the excess claim of exempted income. So, the addition made by the ld. AO Rs.24,30,000/- is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 28/Asr/2020 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE ) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order