Sogo Computers Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , Bangalore

ITA 847/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0408 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANNAN NARAYANAN JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 251; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 847/BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 SOGO COMPUTERS PVT. LTD., D-1, HAYES COURT, NO.11/9, HAYES ROAD, (OFF: RICHMOND ROAD), BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AACCS 8954L VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANNAN NARAYANAN, JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT) , BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 .0 3 .202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .0 3 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), BENGALURU-6, BENGALURU DATED 31.01.20 17 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN NOT GIVING THE EFFECT TO THE FINDINGS DURING THE AS SESSMENT WHICH REDUCES THE TAXABLE INCOME BY RS. 1, 19,67,62 0/- BUT CONSIDERED ON THE FINDINGS WHICH INCREASES THE TAXA BLE INCOME. ITA NO.847/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 2] THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EARED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN NOT GIVING THE CREDIT FOR THE TDS AS PER 26AS FOR RS.23,37,041/- AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND GIVE C REDIT TO ONLY RS. 22,72,562/- AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED. 3] WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN TAXING RS.1,19,67,620/- WHICH WAS NOT TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4] WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL STATING THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DO NOT EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE GROUND ON MERIT. 5] WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)BANGA LORE 6 FAILED TO ALLOW U/S 251 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 THE CLAIM MADE TO HIM TO REDUCE THE INCOME BY RS.1,19,67,620/ - BEING THE EXCESS INCOME OFFERED BY INCREASING THE VALUE O F THE CLOSING STOCK BY MISTAKE. 6] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO A DJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS):- ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACT OF THE CASE. 2] THE LEARNED DEPUTY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX E RRED IN NOT GIVING THE EFFECTS TO THE MISTAKES HAPPENED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,19,67,620/-. 3] THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ER RED IN NOT GIVING THE CREDIT AS PER 26AS FOR TDS OF RS.23, 37,041 ITA NO.847/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 BUT GAVE CREDIT ONLY THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME RS.22,72,562/- 4] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. HOWEVER, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED BY THE CIT( APPEALS) ON THE REASON THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT EMANATING FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE A DJUDICATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM ON MERITS INSTE AD OF DISMISSING THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT B E ENTERTAINED BY THE AO OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. HOWEVER , THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE POWER OF TRIBUNAL U/S. 254 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT]. BEING SO, WE REMAND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTE R AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 9 TH MARCH, 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO.847/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.