M/s Punjab Genco Limited, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 329/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6147 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.329/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S PUNJAB GENCO LIMITED, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 4( 1), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AABCE4247L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.06.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2013 OF CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT ADJUDIC ATING THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM IN RECTIFICATION APPLI CATION FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO RECTIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO FILI NG OF AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN WHICH IS FACT IS NOT A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AS EXPLAINED IN ORIGINAL AND RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS RELYING ON CIRCULAR NO. 2 3/2009 PAGE 1 OF 6 F.NO. 142/02/2009-TPL DATED 21 ST MAY 2009 AND AS SUCH HIS FINDING IS ILLEGAL, ARBITR ARY AND UNJUSITIFED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DULY SUBMIT TED IN THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND RECTIFICA TION PROCEEDINGS WHILE ADJUDICATING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTI FIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DECISION CITED BEFORE HI M IN ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND SPECIFICALLY CITED AGAIN I N RECTIFICATION APPLICATION. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW A ND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT ORIG INALLY DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE H AD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MOVED A RECTIFICATI ON APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE MEANTI ME THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY RELIED ON THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT IN ITA NO. 1254/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE TRI BUNAL ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE ON MERIT VIDE PARA 9, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 9 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. 3 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA H AS BEEN DENIED MERELY BECAUSE FORM NO. 10CCB HAS BEEN DATED 25.10.2009 WHICH IN FACT WAS 25.9.2009. IN F ACT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 118200375/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED WHICH MEANS THAT T HE REPORT ITSELF WAS FILED WITHIN DUE DATE. THIS MEAN S REPORT HAD BEEN SIGNED ON 25.9.2009 BUT BY MISTAKE WRONG DATE HAS BEEN MENTIONED. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT LITIGANT CANNOT SUFFER JUST BECAUSE OF SOME CLERICA L / TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ADVISOR OR LEGAL EXPERT. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, ACTUAL REP ORT WAS SIGNED ON 25.9.2009 WHICH IS WELL WITHIN TIME. INTERESTINGLY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POIN TED THAT WRONG MENTIONING OF DATE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD COMMIT TED A MISTAKE BY WRONG MENTIONING OF DATE, SIMILAR MISTAK E CAN BE COMMITTED BY A C.A ALSO. THEREFORE WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AMOUNTING TO RS . 118200375/-. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL TH E DEDUCTION ALREADY STANDS ALLOWED AND, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL HAS BECOME INFR UCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09.06.20 14 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 09 TH JUNE, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 4