M/S ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED (EARLIER M/S MAURYA T.V. PVT LTD), MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 972/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Vanaja Omprakash Seluka, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 46, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's rejection of her rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant had claimed an exemption under Section 54 for a long-term capital gain from the sale of a residential flat in Pune, which was reinvested in a new residential property in Madurai. Due to a technical error during the electronic filing of her return, this exemption was not reflected in the return, leading to a higher tax demand assessed by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore. The Tribunal found that there was an apparent mistake on record due to this technical fault and directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the error after verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH KISHINCHANDANI
• Section: 54; 154; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) Vanaja Omprakash Seluka Flat No. B13 2/4, Radhkrishna, Arunoday Nagar, Mulund East, Mumbai-4000081 Vs. ITO, Ward 42(3)(3) Room No. 754, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ANRPS2271F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent by : Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani Date of Hearing 07.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH :- 1. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ([hereinafter “the Act”] by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 46 [hereinafter „the CIT(A)‟] dated 02.05.2023 for A.Y.2014-15 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 154 rejecting the appellant's application for rectification with respect to the exemption P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 AY 2014-15 Vanaja Omprakash Seluka claimed under Section 54 not uploaded in the ITR filed electronically due to a technical error. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered exemption claimed u/s 54 as a fresh claim made by the appellant before him and allowed the said exemption after adjudicating such fresh claim on merits. 3. Fact in brief is that the assessee is an individual assessee. The assessee has filed return of income on 21.06.2014 for A.Y. 2014- 15. The assessee received an intimation under Section 143(1) from CPC, Bangalore with demand of Rs. 3,14,070/-. However, as per the acknowledgment and computation sheet the amount of tax payable was determined to the amount of ₹ 68,404/- the same was paid by the assessee at the time of filling return of income. There was long term capital gain of 13.39,577/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee had sold one residential flat at Pune on 23.08.2013 and earned long term capital gain of ₹ 13,39,577/- on that property, and invested ₹ 29,43,900/- in new residential house at Madurai. The return was e-filed but during uploading due to some technical fault, the exemption claimed did not figure, however, in the ITR Ack. the tax payable was shown at ₹ 68,404/- after considering the exemption. However, the CPC Bangalore has assessed the income higher by ₹ 13,39,577/-. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 AY 2014-15 Vanaja Omprakash Seluka 4. The assessee filed rectification application before the Learned Assessing Officer that she had purchased a new residential flat and the assessee was entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act and entire amount earned from long term capital gain was invested in the new flat and same was not allowed due to technical fault occurred while uploading return. However the Assessing Officer has rejected the u/s 54 application filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the materials on record. During the year under consideration the assessee has sold one residential flat at Pune on 23.08.2013 and earned capital gain of ₹13,39,577/- and the same was invested in the new residential house purchased for ₹29,43,900/- at Madurai on 27.02.2013. The assessee has claimed exemption of ₹ 13,39,577/- under Section 54 of the Act in respect of long term capital gain earned from sale of said property. We have perused the copy of ITR Form for assessment year 2014-15 and ITR-2 for assessment 2014-15 placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee has worked out total tax liability of ₹68,404/- and also mentioned under part B long term capital given on immovable P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 AY 2014-15 Vanaja Omprakash Seluka property at ₹13,39,577/- and under head deduction also mentioned section 54 of the Act in the return of income filed. However, because of technical fault the amount of deduction was not mentioned against the deduction claim under Section 54 of the Act. We have also perused the copy of ITR acknowledgment wherein also the assessee has shown total tax paid of ₹68,404/-. Further, in the computation of income the assessee has computed tax liability of ₹68,404/- and also given the working of deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act. Since the amount of capital gain claimed as deduction could not be reflected in the ITR form, therefore, the CPC, Bangalore computed the tax liability after taking into account the long term capital gain earned by the assessee from the sale of the flat.  The assessee has placed following material on record :-ITR V (acknowledgment) and computation of income for A.Y. 2014-15  ITR form for A.Y. 2014-15  Intimation under section 143(1) By referring the above, the assessee claimed that due to some technical fault the exemption claimed did not figure and acknowledgment of ITR show total tax payable at ₹68,404 and further, the assessee could not check fault occurred due to expiry of her charted accountant on 14.08.2014 as submitted by the assessee. P a g e | 5 ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 AY 2014-15 Vanaja Omprakash Seluka 7. The assessee has demonstrated from the relevant material as referred above that there is a technical fault occurred while uploading ITR filed electronically which resulted in raising demand by the CPC while processing the return of income filed by the assessee. I consider that the there is apparent mistake on record which is required to be rectified by the Assessing Officer after verification and examination of the relevant supporting material placed in the record regarding claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act sale of flat which was entirely invested in the new flat purchased. Accordingly, I restore this case to the file of the Assessing Officer for providing deduction to the assessee under Section 54 of the Act after required verification. 8. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 22.09.2023 Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Mumbai Date 22.09.2023 ANIKET SINGH RAJPUT/STENO आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant P a g e | 6 ITA No. 2043/Mum/2023 AY 2014-15 Vanaja Omprakash Seluka 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.