ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7028/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 702819914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWIN S CHHAG
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM) .. , , ./I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED ELITE SQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, 274, PERIN NARIMAN STREET, MUMBAI-400001. / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), MUMBAI. ( ! / APPELLANT) .. ( '# ! / RESPONDENT) ./ $% ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAACA4832D ! & / APPELLANT BY : MR. ASHWIN S CHHAG '# ! ' & /RESPONDENT BY : MR.M RAJAN ( ) ' *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 13.8.2014 ,- ' *+ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.8.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 24- 09-2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-4, MUMBAI AND IT RELATE S TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A ) WAS DELAYED BY 17 MONTHS. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APP EAR FOR HEARING. HENCE, THE LD CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY, REJECTED THE PRAYER PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSE E FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. O N MERITS ALSO, THE LD CIT(A) I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 2 CONSIDERED THE ISSUES, BUT DISMISSED THEM WITH A SH ORT ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTIO N OF THE LD CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE FIRST. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 14.11.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.79,14,607/-. AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PAY THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE ABOVE SAID RETURNED INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 140A OF THE ACT (SELF ASSESSMENT TAX). THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED I NCOME WORKED OUT TO RS.30,11,716/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 29-12-2009 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,29,14,460/-. IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR ANY TAX. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF RET URN OF INCOME AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- 25.07.2008 15,00,000 29-07-2008 5,11,716 15-01-2009 10,00,000 ----------------- 30,11,716 ========= SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PAY CREDIT FOR THE ABOVE SAID TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, IT MOVED A PETITION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE AO, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 16.02.2010, GAVE CREDIT FOR RS.20,11,716/-. HE REF USED TO PAY CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS PAID ON 15.01.2009 (AO MEN TIONED IT AS 29-01-2009), SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN OLTAS AS THE A SSESSEE HAD MENTIONED I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 3 WRONG PAN. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM O F RS.10,37,331/- AGAIN ON 12.03.2010. 5. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL CANNOT B E FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT PAYING THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. HEN CE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DAT E OF RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FINALLY FILED THE A PPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) ON 30- 06-2011. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS RECEIVI NG NOTICE OF DEMAND FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HUGE DEMAND WAS SHOWN AS STILL OUTSTANDING IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. HENC E, THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE EARLIER PAYMENTS MAD E BY IT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT THE SELF ASSESSMENT T AX IS STILL TO BE PAID. 6. THE ABOVE DISCUSSED REASONS WERE SUBMITTED BEFO RE LD CIT(A) IN THE PETITION FILED BEFORE HIM SEEKING CONDONATION. THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX BY 12.03.2010, BUT IT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE 30-06-20 11. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH PROPER EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY OCCURRED A FTER 12.03.2010. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO CONF USION, THE SAME WAS NOT CONVINCING TO THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISS UE. BEFORE US ALSO, THE LD A.R REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE BEFO RE LD CIT(A). THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF T HE ASSESSEE, (A) SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE CREDIT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS; I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 4 (B) THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY TAX SECOND TIME AND (C)THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING DEMAND NOTICES EVEN F OR THE AMOUNTS ALREADY PAID BY IT. THE LD A.R ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON HOSTS OF CASE LA W TO SUBMIT THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ADOPT LIBERAL APPROACH IN THE MA TTER OF CONDONING THE DELAY. 8. THE LD D.R, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX BY 12-03-2010, HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAS PAID THE APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) ONLY ON 30-06-11, I.E., AFTER EXPI RY OF 15 MONTHS. THE ONLY EXPLANATION FURNISHED FOR THE DELAY OF 15 MONTHS IS CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ASSIS TED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND HENCE THE SAID SUBMISSION IS NOT ACC EPTABLE. 9. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I.E., BEFO RE 29-12-2009. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT COULD NOT FILE THE AP PEAL ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PAYMENT OF TAX IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON 16.02 .2010 GIVING CREDIT FOR RS.20,11,716/-, BUT REFUSED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR RS.1 0.00 LAKHS DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEM. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,37,331/- AGAIN ON 12.03.2010. APPARENTLY, TH E ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT SECOND TIME ONLY WITH THE INTENTION OF F ILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.40.48 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE SELF ASSESSMEN T TAX DEMAND OF RS.30.11 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE APPE AL EVEN AFTER PAYMENT OF TAX ON 12.03.2010. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) ONLY I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 5 ON 30-06-2011. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED B EFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT WAS IN A CONFUSED MIND ABOUT THE TAXES PAID BY IT. THIS EXPLANATION IS HARD TO BELIEVE, S INCE THE ASSESSEE IS ASSISTED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND HENCE THE QUESTI ON OF CONFUSION SHOULD NOT NORMALLY EXPECTED TO RISE. HENCE, AS SUBMITTED BY LD D.R, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY OCCUR RED FROM 12.03.2010. 10. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE DE LAY SHOULD BE EXPLAINED FROM THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION TO THE DATE OF FILING THE A PPEAL ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. OF COURSE, A LIBERAL APPROACH IS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THI S MATTER, PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR THE DELAY OCCURRED FROM 12.03.2010. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING T O CONDONE THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 11. THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) HAS EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS ON THE ISSUES URGED ON MERITS ALSO WITH A SHORT ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND IT N ECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS ALL THE G ROUNDS URGED BEFORE US. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH AUG , 2014. ,- ( . / 0 27TH AUG, 2014 - ' 1) 2 SD SD ( / VIVEK VARMA) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI: 27TH AUG,2014. I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012 6 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS !'#$% &%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ' # ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 4* ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ( 4* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 51 '* 6 , + 6 , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 17 8) / GUARD FILE. 9 ( / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY : $ (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + 6 , ( ) /ITAT, MUMBAI