Shobhan Panda , Cuttack V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (International Taxation), Bhubaneswar

ITA 48/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7618 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.48/CTK/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Year :2009-2 010) Shobhan Panda, At/Po: Jajbha irab, Agrahat, Choud war , Cuttack, Or is sa-75 4070 P AN No. AG PPP 68 31 K ................. Assessee Versus ACIT (Inte rnationa l T axation ), Bhubanes war ..................Revenue Shri D.Parida & C.Parida, ARs for the assessee Shri J.K.Lenka, Sr.DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 16.03.2020 for the assessment year 2009-2010, confirming the rejection of assessee’s rectification application filed u/s.154 of the Act by the AO on the ground that the application was belated. 2. At the outset, we found that the present appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 269 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating therein that due to forced ITA No.48/CTK/2021 2 shutdown and lockdown along with travel restrictions in continuance of havoc of COVID-19 pandemic it was not possible to have consultation and preparation of appeal with his legal consultant resulting in the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the above delay is neither deliberate nor intention and the same may kindly be condoned. Ld.AR to support his contentions placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020, dated 27 th April, 2021. Ld. Sr.DR did not have any objection to condone the delay occurred in filing the instant appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 269 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee is a seafarer and filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year declaring the total income of Rs.15,33,244/-. However, as the assessee had not earned the income in India, the assessee had not disclosed any taxable income. It was also the submission that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed u/s.143(1) of the Act but the copy of the same was not served on the assessee. A copy of the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act came to be served by e-mail on 03.06.2022, wherein a demand of Rs.5,23,910/- has been raised against the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee had received a demand notice on an earlier date against which the assessee filed an application u/s.154 of the Act but the application had been rejected by the AO on the ground that the application was belated and the same was not filed within four years from ITA No.48/CTK/2021 3 the end of the Financial year in which the order u/s.143(1) of the Act was passed. It was the submission that in similar circumstances the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Debashish Pattanaik, in ITA Nos.02- 04/CTK/2021, order dated 18.05.2022, has directed the AO to delete the income representing the income as seafarer from the income computed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the total income of the assessee to be computed thereafter. It was the submission that on similar line the assessee may also be given the same benefit. 4. In reply, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not filed the revised return nor has he filed a rectification application u/s.154 of the Act within the prescribed time. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 6. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Debashish Pattanaik (supra), wherein in para 7, it has been held by the Tribunal as follows :- 7. Admittedly, a perusal of the return filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has disclosed his income from salary as a seafarer and has claimed exemption of the same u/s.195 of the Act when he has filed the return. In fact, the same is specifically mentioned in his return and in his computation of total income. A perusal of the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act shows that the exemption which has been claimed by the assessee has not been granted to the assessee but has been ignored in its entirety. This is not something that can be done by an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. True that the assessee has filed his application u/s.154 of the Act much after the four years period of the end of the financial year in which the order was passed. However, the assessee has claimed and the revenue has not been able to disprove that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was not served on him until 20.01.2021 when ITA No.48/CTK/2021 4 the certified true copy was given to the assessee. Thus, clearly the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not being able to file any appeal against the order or file a rectification within a time prescribed. The assessee admittedly is entitled to the relieve insofar as the income offered by him is salary income as seafarer and the records also clearly shows that he is an NRI during that period. Copy of his Passport details are also available on the record. Thus, in the interest of natural justice, nay, substantial justice, it is directed that the exempt income of the assessee representing his salary income as a seafarer be deleted from the income computed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the total income of the assessee to be computed thereafter. Thus, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2007-2008 is allowed. 7. Respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, on identical findings, the issue involved in the present appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/06/2022. Sd/- (अरुण खोड़पऩया) (ARUN KHODPIA) Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 14/06/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- Shobhan Panda, At/Po: Jajbha irab, Agrahat, Choud war ,Cuttack , Ori ssa-754070 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ACI T ( I n t e r n a t io n a l T a xa t io n ), B h u b a n e s wa r 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. पिभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यापऩत प्रयत //True Copy//