SHRI KANCHAN KUMAR MITRA, NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), AMRITSAR

ITA 539/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1132 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 148; 144; 80C; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kanchan Kumar Mitra, K-2007, C.R. Park New Delhi, 110019 [PAN: ADGPM5054K] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Amritsar. (Respondent) Appellant by None. Respondent by Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,Amritsar, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No. CIT(A)/ASR-2/10334/2018-19, date of order 03.06.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011-12.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2 Officer,Ward 4(3), Amritsar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/147of the Act date of order 26.12.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the order passed u/s 144 by the Assessing officer is totally illegal, unjust arbitrary and opposed to the actual facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Amritsar has therefore erred in law and in fact in confirming the order passed u/s 144 which should have been annulled as the Assessing officer was not justified in law and in fact in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 which was never served on the assessee. 2. That the order passed u/s 144 by the assessing officer at Amritsar was out of jurisdiction as the assessee was not residing in his territorial judication and nor any notice u/s 144 was ever served on the assessee , the assessment framed u/s 144 was therefore bad in law and the learned CIT appeals has therefore erred in law and in fact in confirming the order and allowing relief on quantum only. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case the assessment order should have been annulled. The order passed u/s 144 may Kindly be quashed being illegal and uncalled for. I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 3 3. That learned CIT(A)-2, Amritsar has erred in law and in fact in not allowed deduction u/s 80C which was right claimed, and necessary evidence before her. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal during the hearing of appeal or earlier.” 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a service man. He travelled the world in different time during service period. The notice u/s 148 was originated in the Amritsar and assessment was completed with addition of Rs.10,31,877/- in the head of salary which was received from “Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd” and the deposit of cash amount to Rs.7 lace which was treated as consulting income. Further the deduction u/s 80C was not allowed due to absence of documents. The assessee had not filed his return during assessment year under the appeal. But the ld. AO had credited the TDS amount of Rs.1,21,740/- during computation of tax. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. During hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent of ld. Sr. DR. The assessee first challenged that the I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 4 jurisdiction of the ld. AO about assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee had filed a written submission withrunning pages 1 to 31 which is kept in the record. In the paper book, the assessee submitted the PPF amount of Rs.70,000/- which is eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 80C of the Act. But the ld. CIT(A) had not taken cognizance during the appeal hearing. The jurisdiction of the AO was challenged by the assessee. But, the assessee had not filed any petition by challenging his jurisdiction before the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding. Also during the appeal the petition for change of jurisdiction was not filed as per the provision of the Act. The assessee staying in Delhi and the assessment was completed in Amritsar. The issue was primarily not taken care by the ld. CIT(A)in appeal proceeding. The ld. Sr. DR is only relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 5. We heard the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and considered the documents available in the record. The territorial jurisdiction of the assessee is not in Amritsar but in New Delhi, as per the claim of assessee. But before any of the authorities the assessee had not challenged its jurisdiction. Regarding deduction u/s 80C, the assessee had filed a copy of the receipt as proof of payment of PPF which is primarily showing the payment amount of Rs.70,000/-. In our opinion, the issue of the assessee should be further adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). In view of these I.T.A. No.539/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 5 discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the first appellate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing, for adjudication of jurisdictional ground &allowability of Section 80C of the Act in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. No other issue was challenged before the ITAT the order passed as per the terms indicated above. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.539/Asr/2019 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order