UTI SPECTRUM FUND,MAURITIUS V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

ITA 3558/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves UTI Spectrum Fund, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention was the incorrect computation of short term capital gains, which led to double taxation of the same income. Initially, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return and issued an intimation under section 143(1), which erroneously considered the short term capital gains at INR 36,90,994 instead of INR 18,45,497. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing, which the assessee argued was not deliberate but due to the CPC's delay in resolution. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer rectified the mistake, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34721 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 154; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3558/MUM/2024 (A.Y: 2019-20) UTI Spectrum Fund 3rd Floor, 355 Nex, Rue Du Savoir, Cybercity Ebene, Mauritius – 72201. PAN: AABCU0174B Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - International Tax Circle 4(3)(1) International Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Angha Gangurde/Shubhangini Das Department Represented by : Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi Sr. AR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): - 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 15.05.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 58, ITA No. 3558/Mum/2024 UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20 Page | 2 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds: 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 2. That on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was on account of delay in resolution to be provided by the Centralized Processing Centre ('CPC')/Assessing Officer ('AO') and thereby not attributable to the Appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred to comprehend that the term \"sufficient cause\" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice to the Appellant. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not examining the Appellant's case on principles of natural justice considering the fact that in the intimation u/s 143(1), short term capital gain has been considered at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- resulting in double taxation of the same income twice at different rates”. 3. Assessee vide its letter prayed for withdrawal of appeal in ITA No. 3558/Mum/2024 for A.Y.2019-20. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the contents of the said Application as under: - “With reference to the above captioned subject, we would like to inform that your honor has asked us to appear before the Hon'ble ITAT, 'SMC\" Bench, Mumbai for an appeal hearing scheduled on 17- 09-2024. ITA No. 3558/Mum/2024 UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20 Page | 3 The Appellant had filed Return of Income ('ROI') u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2019-20 on 19-09-2019 declaring a total income of INR 19,00,460/-. Accordingly, the ROI was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre ('CPC\") and thereby intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued dated 30-04-2020. As per the aforesaid intimation, the CPC has inadvertently considered the Short term Capital Gains ('STCG) at INR 36,90,994/- instead of INR 18,45,497/- as computed in the ROI thus resulting in double addition of same income. Thus, determining a total income of INR 37,45,950/- and demand payable of INR 3,42,890/-. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(Appeals)] along with condonation for delay against the said intimation. However, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal rejecting the condonation of delay. Against the said intimation u/s 143(1), the Appellant apart from preferring appeal before the CIT(Appeals), also filed petition for rectification u/s 154 of the mistake in the said intimation. In this regard, please note that the Assessing Officer has rectified the said mistake by passing order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 29-07- 2024”. 4. In view of the application, we have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. The Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the withdrawal of this appeal. 5. We find considerable cogency in the contentions of Assessee as aforesaid. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the Appeal and accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal as withdrawn. ITA No. 3558/Mum/2024 UTI Spectrum Fund; A.Y. 2019-20 Page | 4 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S.) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai / Dated 08.10.2024 Karishma J. Pawar, (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "