G S Management Services Private Limited, Bengaluru V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

MA 51/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3051 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP No.51/Bang/2022 (in ITA No.456Bang/2021) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. G. S. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. No.1091, 2nd Floor, SRNG Sampanappa Complex OTC Road, Nagarathpet Bengaluru - 560 002. PAN No. : AACCG 3308 G Vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by:Shri. V. Sridhar, CA Respondent by :Shri.K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing:26.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement:30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President: This is a Miscellaneous petition (MP) filed by the assessee u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) praying for rectification of certain apparent errors in the order of the Tribunal which needs to be rectified. 2. In paragraph 5 of the Order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case with the following observations: MP No.51/Bang/2022 (in ITA No.456Bang/2021) Page 2 of 3 “5. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the rejection of exemption only on the reasoning that the assessee did not respond to the notice given by CPC about the discrepancy and nor did it file any revised return of income. In our view, if an assessee is eligible for any relief under the Income tax Act, the same cannot be denied on account of any inadvertent mistake or procedural default. Accordingly, we are not able to appreciate the reasoning given by Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of exemption. In our view, the claim of the assessee has to be examined in accordance with law. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the A.O. for examining it afresh. The assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard in this regard. After hearing the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.” 3. In this MP, the assessee has pointed out that the Tribunal at one place has set aside the issue to the AO and in another place has said that the matter should go the CIT(A). In the MP, it has been submitted that this anomaly in the order should be rectified. 4. We have perused the Order of the Tribunal and are of the view that there is anomaly as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the assessee. We also notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) was an appeal against the intimation by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act and it has been the plea of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal that the CPC passed the intimation even though the time for giving the reply by the assessee had not expired. Taking into consideration this aspect, we are of the view that the issue should be restored to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we amend the Order of the Tribunal as follows: (a)The 10 th line in paragraph 5 will stand amended as follows: MP No.51/Bang/2022 (in ITA No.456Bang/2021) Page 3 of 3 “Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO.” (b)In the 14 th line, the sentence beginning “after hearing the assessee............”, is substituted with the following sentence “after hearing the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.” 5. In the result, the MP is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMIPRASAD SAHU) (N. V. VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated : 30.08.2022. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.