Shri Devesh Mineshkumar Mistry , Surat V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(3)(1)( old-3(2), Surat

ITA 3236/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9628 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURAYA
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMADABAD , BEFORE: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3236/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DEVESH M. MISTRY A-1001, SWASTIK BUILDING, RANDER ROAD, TADWADI, SURAT - 395009 V S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT PAN NO. AHTPM4398R (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY REVENUE SHRI R. P. MAURAYA, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 22.12.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.02.2016 O R D E R PER : RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) - II, SURAT DATED 03.08.2015 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2009-10. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 O F ITAT RULES, 1963. THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. 2. IN BRIEF, THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ITO, WARD-3(2), SURAT VIDE WHICH APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION WAS REJECTED. ITA NO.3236/AHD/15 A.Y.09-10 (DEVESH M. MISTRY VS. ITO) PAGE 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE WA S WORKING WITH M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. HE HAS A SALARY INCOME OF RS.1,9 0,141/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED PROFESSIONAL FEES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AMOUN TING TO RS.1,62,259/-. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.3,41,070/-. HE RECEIVED AN INTIMATION FROM CENTRAL PROCESSING CENT RE WHEREBY HIS NET TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ENHANCED BY A SUM OF RS.1,80,590/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 24.11.2010. THE LD. ACIT- CPC HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. IT EM ERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED AN APPARENT ERROR, HE HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.3,43,246/-. IT WA S THE TOTAL OF SALARY PLUS PROFESSIONAL FEES. THE CPC HAS FURTHER ADDED THE S ALARY INCOME OF RS.1,80,987/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY. TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 22.11.2010 AND RECTIFIED THIS MIS TAKE. THE COGNIZANCE OF THIS RETURN WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. D.R., WE HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER REV EALS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CPC FOR TWO REASONS; (A) IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY HE HIMSELF HAS COMMITTED MI STAKE AND DID NOT FILL UP COLUMNS PROPERLY. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A), ASSESSE E OUGHT TO HAVE SHOWN SALARY INCOME AND PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN THE COLU MN MEANT FOR THAT PURPOSES. (B) IN THE SECOND REASON, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. THE ALLEGED REVISED RETURN FILED ON 22.11.2010 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT WAS FILE D AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT A REVISED RETURN U/S.139(5) CAN BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE EN D OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WH ICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PROCESSING OF THE RETURN U/S.1 43(1) IS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO.3236/AHD/15 A.Y.09-10 (DEVESH M. MISTRY VS. ITO) PAGE 3 AND IF ANY RETURN FILED AFTER THIS, THEN COGNIZANCE OF THAT REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE TAKEN. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INTIMATION MADE U/S.143(1) CANNOT BE EQUA TED WITH AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISE D RETURN WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COGNI ZANCE OF THE REVISED RETURN SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. A PATENT ILLEGALITY CANNOT BE REGULARIZED ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICALITIES. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT QUASI- JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ARE BEING RESPECTED NOT ON ACC OUNT OF THEIR POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUND BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO SO. THE HYPER TECHNICA L APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS HIGHLY DEPRECIABLE. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO EXCLUDE A SUM OF RS.1,80,990 /- ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PROCESSING HIS RETURN. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11/02/2 016 SD/- SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/02/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. !' / RESPONDENT 3. #$#%& ' ' ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' ' - / CIT (A) 5. () *' ++%& , ' ' %& , $ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. * ./ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ' # ' ' %& , $