SAMPURNA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 6676/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Sampurna Family Trust appealing against an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the incorrect processing of their tax return, which allegedly led to the wrongful disallowance of exempted income amounting to Rs. 15,83,820 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The trust argued that their return was erroneously filed in FORM ITR-7 instead of FORM ITR-V, which was necessary to claim the exemptions legally. The trust also contended that due to the closure of the filing portal and the expiration of the time to file a revised return, they were unable to rectify the return as required under Section 139(5) of the Act. However, before the tribunal could deliberate on these issues, the trust decided to withdraw their appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474447 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUTANA ROY CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Revised return; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(1); 139(5)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 6676/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sampurna Family Trust, Ashirwad Building, 23, Kalidas Patitundi Lane, Kolkata-700 026. Vs. ITO Ward 29(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Dakshin, 2 Gariahat Road, (South), Kolkata-700031. PAN NO. AALTS 3763 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Sutana Roy Choudhary Revenue by : Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR (on behalf of Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 11/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: I. For that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.11.2024 for the assessment year 2017 exempted income of Rs. 15,83,820/ 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as the said Act') is err to the laws and facts. II. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that since the return filed by the appellant in FORM ITR defective as the appellant ought to have filed its return in FORM I in ITR-7 being invalid could not be processed u/s 143(1) of the said Act and thus the assessment/ adjustment made under. Section 143(1) of the said Act disallowing the exempted income of Rs. 15,83,820/ sustainable in the eyes of law. III. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant earned a sum of Rs. 54,24,864/ returned income of the appellant is Rs. 38,41,040/ not disputed IV. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the income of the appellant Trust was exempted from tax inasmuch as it comprised of dividend income from Domestic Private Limited Company of Rs. 969,474/ interest on IREDA Tax Free Bond of Rs. 5,98,500/ u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) ) and Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of tax free bonds of Rs. 15,846/ said Act. V. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the appellant Trust ought to have filed it's return in FORM ITR instead erroneously filed the same in FORM ITR said return is not valid in law, no adjustment could have been made under Section 143(1)(a) of the said Act disallowing the lawful exe VI. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant Trust despite of best efforts couldn't rectify the return due to the portal being closed and the time to file revised return expired. VII. For that Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the said Act to claim exemption correctly without appreciating the fact that the time by which the appellant was notified, the time VIII. to file revised return expired and thus the same could be rectified nor a revised. IX. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the impugned adjustment was made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and not Section 139(9) of the Act as claimed by the appellant and on the basis of records no violation is found on t claimed by the appellant. X. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,83,820/ 143(1) of the said Act thereby dismissing the appeal. Sampurna Family Trust ITA No. that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.11.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 in confirming the addition of exempted income of Rs. 15,83,820/- by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as the said Act') is erroneous, bad, perverse and in contradiction to the laws and facts. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that since the return filed by the appellant in FORM ITR-7 was erroneous and defective as the appellant ought to have filed its return in FORM ITR-V to claim its unlawful exemptions, the said return 7 being invalid could not be processed u/s 143(1) of the said Act and thus the assessment/ adjustment made under. Section 143(1) of the said Act disallowing the exempted income of Rs. 15,83,820/- is bad, perverse, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant earned a sum of Rs. 54,24,864/- for the said assessment year when the returned income of the appellant is Rs. 38,41,040/- not disputed For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the income of the appellant Trust was exempted from tax inasmuch as it comprised of dividend income from Domestic Private Limited Company of Rs. 969,474/- ( exempted u/s 10(34)) ; accrued erest on IREDA Tax Free Bond of Rs. 5,98,500/ - u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) ) and Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of tax free bonds of Rs. 15,846/- (exempted u/s 10(35)) of the said Act. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the appellant Trust ought to have filed it's return in FORM ITR- instead erroneously filed the same in FORM ITR-7 and thus the said return is not valid in law, no adjustment could have been made under Section 143(1)(a) of the said Act disallowing the lawful exemptions. For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant Trust despite of best efforts couldn't rectify the return due to the portal being closed and the time to file revised return expired. For that Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the said Act to claim exemption correctly without appreciating the fact that the time by which the appellant was notified, the time to file revised return expired and thus the same could be rectified nor a revised. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the impugned adjustment was made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and not Section 139(9) of the Act as claimed by the appellant and on the basis of records no violation is found on the records as claimed by the appellant. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,83,820/- at the stage of proceedings under Section 143(1) of the said Act thereby dismissing the appeal. Sampurna Family Trust 2 ITA No. 6676/MUM/2024 that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.11.2024 for 18 in confirming the addition of by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as oneous, bad, perverse and in contradiction For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that since the 7 was erroneous and defective as the appellant ought to have filed its return in V to claim its unlawful exemptions, the said return 7 being invalid could not be processed u/s 143(1) of the said Act and thus the assessment/ adjustment made under. Section 143(1) of the said Act disallowing the exempted income is bad, perverse, arbitrary and not For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant earned a for the said assessment year when the which was For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the income of the appellant Trust was exempted from tax inasmuch as it comprised of dividend income from Domestic Private Limited ( exempted u/s 10(34)) ; accrued ( exempted u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) ) and Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of (exempted u/s 10(35)) of the For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the appellant -V but had 7 and thus the said return is not valid in law, no adjustment could have been made under Section 143(1)(a) of the said Act disallowing the For that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant Trust despite of best efforts couldn't rectify the return due to the portal being closed and the time to file revised For that Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding that the appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the said Act to claim exemption correctly without appreciating the fact that the time by which the appellant was notified, the time to file revised return expired and thus the same could neither For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the impugned adjustment was made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and not Section 139(9) of the Act as claimed by the appellant and on he records as For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition at the stage of proceedings under Section 143(1) of the said Act thereby dismissing the appeal. XI. For that the impugned order of CIT( dismissing the appeal is otherwise bad, erroneous and perverse. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted before the bench that the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal. A formal written request for placed on record. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Sampurna Family Trust ITA No. For that the impugned order of CIT( A) dated 06.11.2024 in dismissing the appeal is otherwise bad, erroneous and perverse. At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted before the bench that the assessee seeks to withdraw the present appeal. A formal written request for withdrawal has also been placed on record. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. nced in the open Court on 11/02 Sd/- Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sampurna Family Trust 3 ITA No. 6676/MUM/2024 A) dated 06.11.2024 in dismissing the appeal is otherwise bad, erroneous and At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted before the bench that the assessee seeks to withdraw the present withdrawal has also been placed on record. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "