Padma Devi Chachan (Deceased), Darjeeling V. I.T.O Wd - 2,Darjeeling., Darjeeling

ITA 307/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83081 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GAYASUDDIN ANSARI
• Keywords: Business income; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

` , SMC(B) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC(B) BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE , ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] / I.T.A NO.307/KOL/2013 !'/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PADMA DEVI CHACHAN (DECEASED) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, WD-2, DARJEELING L/H ARUN K. CHACHAN (SON) (PAN: ACPPC9259E) ($% /APPELLANT ) (&'$%/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.09.2014 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI ARUN K. CHACHAN (SON OF DEC EASED ASSESSEE) FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD. GAYASUDDIN ANSARI, JCIT, SR. DR () / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), SILIGURI IN APPEAL NO. 27/ CIT(A)/SLG/11-12 DATED 23.11.2012. PROCESSING U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS MADE BY ITO, CPC, BANGALORE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.06.2010 AND DISPUTED ORDER OF RECTIFICATION WAS PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT BY ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALLO WED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE REJECTING PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 19.03.2010 FOR AY 2009-10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,36,310/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT BY ITO, CPC, BANGALORE DATED 29.06.2010, AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,24,880/-. THE ITO, CPC, BANGALORE ENHANCED THE INCOME AT RS.1,88,590/- WHILE PROCESSING RETURN U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE MOVED RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT ON 27.05.2011 AND ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE VIDE ORDER DATED 28.06.2011 REJECTED THE RECTIFICATION PETITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: PLEASE REFER TO THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST FILED BY YOU FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER AND RECEIVED AT CE NTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER ON 27.05.2011. ON VERIFICATION, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER WHICH YOU HAVE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THEREFORE, YOUR APPLICATI ON FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 154 IS REJECTED, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (IF ANY). 2 ITA NO.307/K/2013 PADMA DEVI CHACHAN (DEECD), AY 09-10 AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE INTIMATION (ORDER) D ATED 29.06.2010 U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE ITO (CPC), BANGALORE AND PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE COPIES OF ITR-V AND MANUALLY FILLED ITR-4 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REFERRED DOCUMENTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE E-RETURN DISCLOSING BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.95,952/- IN SCHEDULE BP AND R S.2,90,506/- IN PART B-TI. THE CONTENTION OF SHRI ARUN K. CHACHAN, SON OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS INCLUDED TWICE ONCE UNDER BUSINESS INCO ME AND ALSO UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF SUM OF RS.95,952/- (BUSINESS INCOME IN SCHEDULE BP) AND TH E SUM OF RS.1,88,571/- (INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES), IS RS.2,84,523/- AND NOT RS./2 ,90,506/-, SHRI CHACHAN COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE FIGURE OF RS.2,90,506/- WAS ENTERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN PART B-TI. AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE GRO SS TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RS.3,05,523/- WHEREAS THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER ITR-V AND COPY OF MANUALLY FILED ITR-4 IS SHOWN AS RS.3,11,506/-. FURTHER, AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RS.2,30,327/- WHEREAS THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER ITR-V AND COPY OF MANUALLY FILED ITR-4 IS SHOWN AS RS.2,36,31 0/-. IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF FIGURES OF BUSINESS INCOME, GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND TOTAL INCOME IN THE E- RETURN IN DIFFERENT SCHEDULES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT FROM RECORDS AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY CPC WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED ON 27-05-2011. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , THE REJECTION OF RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT IS HELD JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2011 OF THE ASST. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX- CPC, BANGALORE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S 154 WITHOUT GIVING IN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D AND EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY AS THERE IS NO SUCH MECHANISM PRESENTLY AVAILABLE IN CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE WHICH HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SET UP FOR BULK PROCESSING OF RETURNS AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF T HE JOB OF PROCESSING OF RETURNS LEADING TO PROMPT ISSUANCE OF REFUND IN APPROPRIATE CASES. FOR RECTIFICATION PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPOSED TO SEND ONLINE FULL DETAILS O F MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SUGGESTION OF FILING REVISED R ETURN GIVEN BY CPC, BANGALORE WAS APPROPRIATE, REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED BUT THE MEASU RES HAVING FILED BELATED RETURN COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN RECOURSE TO THE SUGGESTED ACTION. 4. I HAVE HEARD LD. SR. DR AS WELL AS THE SON OF T HE DECEASED ASSESSEE, SHRI ARUN K. CHACHAN AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE WHICH HE CAN ADD WHILE ACTIN G U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE A CT WAS NOT ALLOWED AND ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR RECTIFICATION IN E-FILING OF RE TURN AND THERE IS NO SUCH MECHANISM ACCORDING TO HIM. I AM FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO IS ALSO A SR. OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT, CAN OBSERVE LIKE THIS. NOW THE CBDT HAS ISSUED THE CIRCULAR FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES COMMITTED BY CPC, BANGALORE AND IN THIS CA SE ALSO, THE ASSESSEES PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY. I EXPUNGE THE FIN DINGS GIVEN BY CIT(A) ON MERITS AND DIRECT 3 ITA NO.307/K/2013 PADMA DEVI CHACHAN (DEECD), AY 09-10 THE JURISDICTIONAL AO OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONSIDER T HE RECTIFICATION PETITION AND DECIDE ACCORDING TO LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03.09.2014. SD/- , (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2014 *+ ,- . JD.(SR.P.S.) () / &0 1(0!2- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . $% / APPELLANT PADMA DEVI CHACHAN (DECEASED), L/H ARUN K. CHACHAN(SON), 6, LADEN LA ROAD, APSARA BUILDING, DA RJEELING (WB) 734101 2 &'$% / RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-2, DARJEELING 3 . ) ( )/ THE CIT(A), SILIGURI 4. 5. ) / CIT SILIGURI 089 & / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA '0 &/ TRUE COPY, ():/ BY ORDER, - /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .