SHIRAZ MARAZBAN ITALIA,SURAT V. PR. CIT -1 SURAT, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT

ITA 680/SRT/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shiraz Marazban Italia against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal were the rejection of a rectification application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the denial of a deduction claimed under section 80C for Rs. 1,50,000, which was part of a revised return. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, noting that the order in question was not appealable under section 253 of the Act as it pertained to a rejection of a delay condonation application, not a rectification order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26781 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: TINISH MODY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 250; 154; 80C; 119(2)(b); 139(5)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.680/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiraz Marazban Italia, 201, Bage Aman Apartment, Opp. Narmad Library, Athwa-lines, Surat – 395007 Vs. The PCIT – 1, Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AACPI8975N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Tinish Mody, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 16.04.2024 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – NFAC erred in confirming the rejection of the rectification application filed u/s 154 of the Act, though the mistake was apparent from records. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC ought to have allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80C amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- as per the revised return filed by the assessee and grant the refund claimed of Rs.20,100/-. 2 ITA No.680/SRT/2024/AY.2015-16 Shiraz Marazban Italia Your appellant therefore prays that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the revised return filed by the assessee should be accepted by allowing the deduction u/s 80C of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby the refund claim of Rs.20,100/-. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal.” 3. Before discussing the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal, it would be proper to discuss the procedure for filing the appeal, contents of memorandum of appeal and what to accompany memorandum of appeal as per Rules 6, 8 and 9 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 respectively. As per Rule 6 of the said Rule, memorandum of appeal to the Tribunal shall be presented by the appellant in person or by the agent to the Registrar of ITAT or to an officer authorized in this behalf by the Registrar. The contents of memorandum of appeal are given in Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. Rule 9 specifies the documents which shall accompany the memorandum of appeal. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 “(1) Every memorandum of appeal shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appeal against, two copies of the order of the Assessing Officer, two copies of grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority and two copies of the statement of facts, if any, filed before the said appellate authority.” 3.1 It is clear from the above that two copies of the orders of AO shall accompany the memorandum of appeal. In this case, no such order has been enclosed by the appellant. On being asked about the same, the Learned 3 ITA No.680/SRT/2024/AY.2015-16 Shiraz Marazban Italia Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that copy of “Rectification application u/s 154 of the Act for AY.2015-16; refund claim of Rs.20,100/-” has been submitted along with Form No.36 filed by the appellant. We have seen the said rectification application filed by the assessee. It is evident from the said application that it was a written submission dated 25.03.2021 by the assessee to the PCIT-1, Surat, requesting to grant refund of Rs.20,100/- on the basis of CBDT Circular No.9/2015, dated 09.06.2015. The said Circular is in respect of condonation of delay in filing refund claim and claim of carry forward losses u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. In fact, the assessee had requested for grant of refund of Rs.20,100/- on the basis of the above Circular. In reply, the PCIT has issued the impugned letter stating that the instruction relating to condonation of delay cannot relax provisions of section 139(5) of the Act. He also stated that it is not a case of rectifications since the return was processed as per the details filed by the assessee. Hence, the application filed by the assessee was treated as ‘filed’. This, it may be clarified that the reply of the PCIT has been signed by the ITO (HQ)-1 for the PCIT, Surat-1, Surat and not the PCIT himself. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned reply of the PCIT is not an order u/s 154 of the Act. Rather, this is rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing refund claim u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. This is not an appealable order u/s 253 of the Act which specifies the orders aggrieved by which appeals may be filed to the ITAT. Hence, the appeal filed is dismissed as infructuous. 4 ITA No.680/SRT/2024/AY.2015-16 Shiraz Marazban Italia 3.2 Since the appeal has been dismissed, there is no need to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 12/11/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "