O.Mahendra Kumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3460/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7334 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A.S.SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 143(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3460/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI O. MAHENDRA KUMAR, NO.29/20, EKKAMBARESHWAR, AGRAHARAM, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI 600 006. PAN: AAIPM4389G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-5, CHENNAI DATED 21.10.2016 IN IT APPEAL NO.128/CIT(A) -5/15-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DELAY OF 6 DAYS. THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED DUE TO THE MISPLACEMENT OF THE F ILES BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLEAD ED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AT NO FAULT, THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED . THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. AFTER HEARING 2 ITA NO.3460/MDS/2016 BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED BECAUSE IT WAS DUE TO NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, WHO HAD DISALLOWED THE INTERES T PAYMENT OF RS.71,68,427/-. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 BELATEDLY ON 01.12.2013 AND SUBSEQUENT LY FILED REVISED RETURN ON 22.12.2014. THEREAFTER ORDER U/S .143(1) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 28.04.2014 BY THE CENTRALIZED PROCESS ING CENTRE. THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN ON 04.11.2015 FILED A PETIT ION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(1) OF TH E ACT; HOWEVER THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE LD.A.O STATING THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIE D. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO U/S.154 OF THE ACT THE ASSES SEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS POSTED 3 ITA NO.3460/MDS/2016 FOUR TIMES FOR HEARING. HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) DISPO SED OFF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON MERITS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A), BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CHANCES TO SUCCEED IN HIS APPEAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WA S RELATED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE TOWARDS BORROWINGS WHICH WAS DEPLOYED IN HIS PARTNERSHIP FI RM BY CHARGING INTEREST. THE LD.AR THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MAT TER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDE RATION. THE LD.DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS AN OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN THE OMISSION WAS POINTE D OUT BEFORE THE LD.AO, IT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED BELATED RETURN HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE REVISED RETURN. FOR THE ABOVE STATED REASONS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DENIED THE BENEFIT OF 4 ITA NO.3460/MDS/2016 DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT CERT AIN ERRORS IN THE COMPUTATION BEFORE THE LD.AO, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONS IDERED THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF LD.AO WITH DIRECTION TO ADMIT AND EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRES H AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AND MERITS. WHILE DOING SO WE STRONGLY PLACE RELIANCE IN THE D ECISION OF THE CASE NTPC V/S. CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE POINTS OF LAW EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2017 JR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF