Smt. K.Bhuvaneswari, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 846/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61246 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G NANTHAKUMAR JT
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.846/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT. K. BHUVANESWARI C/O DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE 51/24 NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI VS THE ITO WARD I(1) CHENNAI [PAN AFNPB3602F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.NANTHAKUMAR, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 27-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI, DATED 30.1.2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A ) THE COMM I SSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ) ERRED I N CONFI R M I NG ASS UM PT I O N O F J UR I SD I CT I ON BY THE ASSESSING OFF I CER U/S 154 OF THE ACT . I.T.A.NO. 846/12 :- 2 -: B) TH E COMM I SSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEA L S ) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT I NT I MA TI ON U/S 143 ( 1 ) IS NOT LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN SO FA R AS THE IS SUE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED I S NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS . C) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE SCOT OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT COULD BE CARRIED OUT U/S 143 (1) IS VERY LIMITED . CONSEQUENTLY THE SCOPE OF AN INTIMATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BY THE APPLICATION OF SEC.154 TO COVER SUCH MATTERS THAT COULD NOT HAVE B EEN ADDRESSED U/S 143(1) IN THE FIRST PLACE . D ) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING OR AD JU D I CAT I NG ON GROUND NO. . 7 IN THE R IGHT PERSPECTIVE . IN VIEW OF HIS DEC I S I ON ON TH E T AXAB I LITY OF THE GRATUITY RECEIVED , HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE REFUND OF THE T AX DED U CTED AT SOURCE . E ) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE SUM OF RS . 16 , 6 7 , 100/ - CONSTITUTES ' GRATUITY ', NOT LIABLE TO TAX , OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE APPELLANT ' S CLAIM FOR REFUND OF RS . 3,91 , 673/- BEING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOU R CE . F ) THE CIT ( APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR REFUND ON THE GROUND TH AT T HE TDS HAS BEEN G I VEN CREDIT TO . THE AMOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE REFUNDED IN SO F A R AS THE GRA T UITY HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO BE TAXABLE BY THE APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HIM SE LF . 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT I N THE INSTANT CASE, IN THE ORDER U/S 154, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED ONLY GRATUITY AMOUNT OF ` 16,67,100/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, WE FIND THA T THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 154 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND HENCE, INFRUCTUOUS. I.T.A.NO. 846/12 :- 3 -: 4. FURTHER, THE ONLY OTHER GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE APP EAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TAKEN BEFORE HIM WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. GROUND NO.7 RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TH E REFUND OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE APPELLA NT HEREIN. THE OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY IS NOT TAXABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, NO TAX NEED HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE EMPLOYER. 5. THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, HAS HELD AS UNDER: GROUND NO.7 DEALS WITH NON-GRANT OF TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TDS OF ` 3,87,236/- WHICH I FIND HAS BEEN GIVEN CREDIT BY THE A.O IN TH E COMPUTATION COLUMN OF ORDER U/S 154. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IT IS DISMISSED. 6. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CREDIT F OR TDS OF ` 3,87,236/- WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. ONCE CREDIT FOR TDS IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN Y GRIEVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CREDIT. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THUS, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A.NO. 846/12 :- 4 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH JUNE, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JUNE, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR