Satya Ranjan Maitra, Kolkata V. ADIT, International Taxation-II, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 459/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54536 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , ! . '# . ) [BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM] $ $ $ $ / I.T.A NO. 459/KOL/2010 %& '( %& '( %& '( %& '(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SATYA RANJAN MAITRA VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I NCOME-TAX, (PAN AKHPM 9509 P) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II, KO LKATA (*+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. K. GHOSH FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S. K. ROY DATE OF HEARING: 21.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.09.2011 . / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.14/CIT(A)-XXXVI/TAXATION II, KOL/06-07 DATED 26. 11.2009. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATI ON)-II, KOLKATA U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.10.2006. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAI M U/S. 80RRA OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING FOUR EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 8ORRA FOR THE MATERIAL PERIOD. 2. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED THE NECESSAR Y APPROVAL FROM CBDT IN RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE S AME WAS DULY HANDED OVER TO THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL CASE AND THE SAME WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED IN TERMS OF DIRECTION BY CBDT AS PER THE SAID APPROVAL. THE SAID OBSERVATIONS ARE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT YOUR PETITIONER STATE THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 80RRA , THE ONLY CONDITION THAT HAS TO BE COMPLIED BY THE APPELLANT IS TO OBTAIN TH E NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE CBDT AND THERE IS NO SUCH ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTION IN THE SAID PROVISION OF THE ACT SO AS TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM ONLY FOR THE RETURNS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILE D IN TERMS OF SECTION 139(1)/139(4) OF THE ACT. 4. FOR THAT OTHERWISE THE SAID CLAIM HAS ARBITRARIL Y BEEN DISALLOWED AND THE SAME IS AGAINST THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 2 ITA 459/K/2010 SATYA RANJAN MAITRA, A.Y.03-04 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED REM UNERATIONS RECEIVED AT RS.6,82,291/-. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS IN ITIATED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ADDING THE REMUNERATION RECEIV ED CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80RRA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT THIS AMOUNT WITHIN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S. 80RRA OF THE ACT AND EVEN NO RETURN U/S. 139(1) OR 139(4) OF THE ACT WAS MADE. A GGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ABOVE. EVEN THOUGH TH E APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM GOVERNMENT U/S.8ORRA OF THE 1.T. ACT BUT HE DI D NOT FULFILL ONE OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS I.E. FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS AVAILABLE U/S. 139(4) OF THE I. T. ACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31 .08.2006 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE APPROVAL WILL NOT ENTITLE THE APPEL LANT TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM AND ACCORD INGLY THE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED. 4. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE GROU NDS RAISED BEFORE HIM BY A SPEAKING ORDER. EVEN CIT(A) HAS NOT GONE INTO THE ISSUE OF CLAIM WHETHER ASSESSEE CAN FILE RETURN U/S. 147 OF THE ACT OR NOT AND ALSO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. IT WAS CLAIMED BE FORE US THAT APPROVAL BY CBDT VIDE LETTER F. NO.517A/10/2006-FTD DATED 4 TH JUNE, 2008 FOR F.Y. 2002-03 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS ALLOWED AND WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT, LET THIS DOCUMENT BE EXAMINED BY CIT(A) AFRESH AND THEN DECI DE ACCORDINGLY AS PER LAW AND PASS SPEAKING ORDER. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . '# '#'# '# . ! , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( #! #! #! #!) )) ) DATED : 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2011 /0 %12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA 459/K/2010 SATYA RANJAN MAITRA, A.Y.03-04 . 4 , 5 '6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT SHRI SATYA RANJAN MAITRA, 1/64/1, PADMA VILLA ABASAN, DR. M. N. SAHA ROAD, KOLKATA-700 074. 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT, ADIT (IT-II), KOLKATA. . 3 . .% ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. .% / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . => ,% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA - ,/ TRUE COPY, .%?/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .