QAYUM IMAIL MUKADDAM, MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) , DELHI

ITA 43/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Qayum Ismail Mukaddam, the appellant, who challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi. The dispute centered on the rejection of the revised return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15, which the assessee filed on the same day as the original return but declared a lower income. The original return was accepted, but upon scrutiny, the revised return was not considered valid by the Assessing Officer due to its belated filing. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that the legal provisions for revising belated returns were not applicable to the year in question, as per the Finance Act, 2016.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125903 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154; 139(5); 139(1); 139(4); 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT A N o. 43 /M u m / 2 0 23 ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 4- 15 ) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam 534/D Garden Colony S6, Soonawala Agiary Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 V s. CIT(Appeal) NFAC, New Delhi P A N / G I R N o. AK F P M 9158 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair D a te o f H e a r i n g : 02.03.2023 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 01.06.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to hear the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and peruse the material available on record. 3. The assessee has challenged the following grounds: The learned A.O. rejected appellant’s request in considering the income details declared by him in his original return & making addition of Rs.15,43,460/- on the contention that revised return filed by him is invalid as the original return was 2 ITA No. 4 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) filed belated. The learned A.O. had not considered the submissions such as Form 16, Bank statements, Form 26AS & also rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 passed by ITO which were made by appellant during the course of scrutiny proceedings. The learned CIT(Appeals) had rejected appellant’s request in dismissing the appeal stating that the assessed income computed by the A.O. as per original return of income filed by the appellant is justified. The appellant prays to ITAT to assess the real income of the appellant i.e. the income reported in the revised return of income. Even though the appellant made a mistake in filing original return, his clerical error should not burden him with additional tax on income which was not earned by him. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee had e-filed his return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2015 declaring total income at Rs.77,84,860/-. The assessee then revised his return on 23.01.2015, declaring total income at Rs.62,41,400/-. The original return was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee’s case was then selected for scrutiny and assessment order dated 28.10.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short), determining the total income at Rs.77,84,860/- which was the income declared by the assessee in his original return. 5. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the order of the A.O. on the ground that the AO has failed to consider the revised return filed by the assessee which was declared as invalid for the reason that the original return was filed belatedly. 6. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO for the reason that the belated return filed for AY 2014-15 cannot be revised and as per the Finance Act, 2016 belated return can be revised only when it is relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 onwards. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of ld. CIT(A). 3 ITA No. 4 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has filed his return of income and has also revised the returns on the same day declaring lesser income than that of the income declared in the original return. The assessee in its submission contended that due to oversight, the assessee has erroneously considered Form 16 of A.Y. 2013-14 for the purpose of filing tax return instead of considering Form 16 for the AY 2014-15. The assessee has further stated that he has filed his returns electronically by himself without availing the services of professionals and, hence, there was an error in considering Form 16 for A.Y. 2013-14 instead of AY 2014-15. The assessee further contended that the same may be verified by perusing the details disclosed in the said returns. It is also pertinent to point out that the assessee realizing that there was an error in the original return has immediately on the same day filed revised return. The lower authorities have failed to consider the revised return for the reason that the assessee has filed his return of income belatedly thereby denying the claim of the assessee as the new provision of sections 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act were introduced in the Finance Act, 2016 which was not applicable to the assessee’s case. The assessee has relied on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also the decisions of the Tribunal which on perusal was distinguishable on facts of the present case and was not on similar facts as that of the present appeal. It is also pertinent to point out that there are varied decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts which has taken contrary views on this issue. The assessee has not relied on any of the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this issue. As the changes brought about in section 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act by the Finance Act, 4 ITA No. 4 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Qayum Ismail Mukaddam vs. CIT(Appeal) 2016 was not intended to be applicable retrospectively, we find no merit in the submission of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 01.06.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai