Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati
Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed, ... vs I.T.O., Ward - Karimganj, Karimganj on 7 February, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
ी संजय गग, या यक सद य एवं ी गर श अ वाल, लेखा सद य के सम
Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed........................................Appellant
Village-Mohakal Badarpur,
Karimganj,
Assam - 788706.
[PAN: AQEPA7827K]
vs.
ITO, Ward-Karimganj.......................................................... Respondent
Appearances by:
Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Date of concluding the hearing : December 12, 2023
Date of pronouncing the order : February 07, 2024
आदे श / ORDER
संजय गग, या यक सद य वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2022 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as 'Pr. CIT'] exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Though the assessee has taken as many as ten grounds of appeal, however, the ld. counsel for the assessee has made arguments only in respect of two legal grounds.
3. The first argument made by the ld. counsel is that the assessment order which has been sought to be revised by the ld. Pr. CIT, itself was not a valid order in law as the computation sheet attached with the assessment order, has not been signed by the Assessing Officer, I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed therefore, the composite order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act i.e. assessment order and the computation sheet could not be treated as a valid and authentic order for want of signature of the Assessing Officer on the computation sheet. The ld. counsel in this respect has submitted that since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be taken cognizance of, therefore, the order of the ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be acted upon under law and therefore, the said order of the ld. Pr. CIT has also become infructuous.
4. We have heard on the above argument made by the ld. counsel and has also gone through the record. It is to be noted here that now-a- days, the Income Tax Department has shifted to digital mode/online mode, which is in its inception stage. Now-a-days, the orders are signed digitally by the concerned Income Tax Authorities and are uploaded and conveyed through online system. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is a mention at the bottom of the order that this document has been signed digitally by the concerned officer namely Shri Pijush Kanti Chakrabotry, ITO, Ward-Karimganj. Along with the assessment order, there is a separate computation sheet served upon the assessee, whereupon, the name of the said Assessing Officer has been duly mentioned not only at the end of the said computation sheet but also it has been mentioned that the copy of the same is sent to the assessee under the name and seal of the said officer. However, in the end of the computation sheet, the stamp/note that 'this document is digitally signed', has not been mentioned. Now, the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the note, "this document has been digitally signed", is missing at the end of the last page of the computation sheet, therefore, the entire assessment order is bad in law.
2I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed
5. We are not convinced with the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. As observed above that digitally signing and uploading of the orders is in inception stage. Even if the said note is missing at the end of the digitally uploaded computation sheet that, in our view, does not invalidate the said computation sheet. Even otherwise, the assessment order and the computation sheet are two separate and distinct documents. Admittedly, the assessment order is digitally signed which has not been disputed by the ld. counsel of the assessee. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(3) of the Act:
"143(3) [On the day specified in the notice issued under] sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Assessing Officer may require on specified points, and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee and determine the sum payable by him or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment]"
6. A perusal of the above provisions of section 143(3) of the Act would reveal that there are two parts/compliances which the Assessing Officer is supposed to do u/s 143(3) of the Act. Firstly, the Assessing Officer shall by an order in writing make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee which means an assessment order has to be passed making assessment of income or loss of the assessee. The second part of the provisions says that the Assessing Officer will determine the sum payable by the assessee or refund of any amount due to the assessee on the basis of such assessment. Therefore, the section 143(3) comprises of two parts, firstly the passing of assessment order and secondly, the computation sheet determining the sum payable by or refund due to the assessee. Now, coming to section 246A of the Act, which reads as under:
3I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed "Appealable orders before Commissioner (Appeals) 246A. (1) Any assessee [or any deductor] [or any collector] aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against--
(a) an order [passed by a Joint Commissioner under clause (ii) of sub-
section (3) of section 115VP or any order] against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act or an intimation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of [section 143 or [sub-section (1) of section 200A or sub-section (1) of section 206CB, where the assessee or the deductor or the collector] objects] to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 [[except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA]]] or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed;"
7. A perusal of the above provisions of section 246A of the Act, which prescribes the appellable orders before the Commissioner (Appeals) would reveal that what is appellable is an order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The words mentioned are "order of assessment"
and not the composite order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. As observed above, what is appellable is the order of assessment and not the computation part of the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act. The order of assessment in this case admittedly has been duly passed and signed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the said order cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner.
7.1 At this stage, it will be relevant to deliberate upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT reported in [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC) which has been strongly relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
"5. The statute does not, however, require that both the computations (i.e. of the total income as well as of the sum payable) should be done on the same sheet of paper, the sheet that is super scribed "assessment order".4
I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed It does not prescribe any form of the purpose. It will be appreciated that once the assessment of the total income is complete with indications of the deductions, rebates, reliefs and adjustments available to the assessee, the calculation of the net tax payable is a process which is mostly arithmetical but generally time consuming. If, therefore, the I.T.O. first draws up an order assessing the total income and indicating the adjustments to be made, directs the office to compute the tax payable on that basis and then approves of it, either immediately or some time later, no fault can be found with the process, though it is only when both the computation sheets are signed or initialled by the I.T.O. that the process described in Section 143(3) will be complete.
6. In this context, one may take notice of the fact that, initially, Rule 15(2) of the Income-tax Rules prescribed form No. 8, a sheet containing the computation of the tax, though there was no form prescribed for the assessment of the income This Sub-rule was dropped in 1964. Thereafter, the matter has been governed by departmental instructions. Under these, two forms are in vogub. One is the form of, what is described as, the "assessment order", (I.T. 30 or I.T.N.S. 65).-The other is what is described the "Income- tax Computation Form" or "Form for Assessment of Tax/Refund" (I.T.N.S. 150). The practice is that after the "assessment order" is made by the I.T.O., the tax is calculated and the necessary columns of I.T.N.S. 150 are filled up showing the net amount payable in respect of the assessment year. This form is generally prepared by the staff but it is checked and signed or initialled by the I.T.O. and the notice of demand follows thereafter. The statute does not in terms require the service of the assessment order or the other form on the assessee and contemplates only, the service of a notice of demand. It seems that while the "assessment order" used to be generally sent to the assessee, the other form was retained on file and a copy occasionally sent to the assessee. I.T.N.S. 150 is also a form for determination of tax payable and when it is signed or initialled by the I.T.O., it is certainly an order in writing by the I.T.O. determining the tax payable within the meaning of Section 143(3). It may be, as stated in CIT v. Himalaya Drug Co. (All) only a tax calculation form for departmental purposes as it also contains columns and code numbers to facilitate computerization of the particulars contained therein for statistical purposes but this does not detract from its being considered as an order in writing determining the sum payable by the assessee. We are unable to see why this document, which is also in writing and which has received the imprimatur of the I.T.O., should not be treated as part of the assessment order in the wider sense in which the expression has to be understood in the context of Section 143(3). There is no dispute in the present case that the I.T.O. has signed the form I.T.N.S.
150. We, therefore, think that the statutory provision has been duly complied with and that the assessment order was not, in any manner, vitiated."
5I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed
8. A perusal of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also distinguished between 'assessment order' and 'Income Tax Computation Form'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that there are two forms in vogue i.e. one I.T.30 or I.T.N.S 65 which is described as assessment order. The other is "Income Tax Computation Form" or "Form for Assessment of Tax/Refund" (I.T.N.S 150). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the practice is that, after the "assessment order" is made by the Income Tax Officer, the taxes calculated and the necessary columns of I.T.N.S. 150 are filled up by the staff but it is checked or signed or initiated by the Income Tax Officer and the notice of demand follows thereafter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that it seems that while the "assessment order" used to be generally sent to the assessee, the other form was retained on file and a copy occasionally sent to the assessee. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also distinguished between assessment order and a computation sheet. What the ld. Pr. CIT has sought to revise by impugned order is the assessment order and not the computation sheet. Therefore, under the circumstances, the assessment order in this case cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner.
9. The second plea raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee, in similar terms, is that there is no note at the end of the notice of hearing served by the ld. Pr. CIT after the initiation of revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.
10. A perusal of the said notice would also reveal that the same has been served upon the assessee electronically and the DIN and notice number has been duly mentioned in the title of the notice and there is no doubt about the authentication or validity of the said notice.
6I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed Moreover, as observed above, merely because there is no note at the end of the notice that this document has been digitally signed, does not invalidate the said notice when otherwise the same has been duly uploaded with DIN and notice number. As observed above, since the online/digital system adopted by the department is in its inception stage, there may remain some discrepancy in electronic form of notice. Moreover, the notice was duly served upon the assessee and the assessee duly participated in the revision proceedings. The purpose of the notice of hearing is to intimate the assessee about the date of hearing and give him opportunity to file his explanation/reply to such notice. In this case, the notice was duly served upon the assessee, whereby, the assessee was duly intimated about the date of hearing and was asked to file his reply/explanation, whereupon the assessee duly filed his reply and explanation which has been considered by the Pr. CIT and the assessee duly participated in the revision proceedings, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the assessee even if there is no note in the end of the notice that "this document has been digitally signed". Therefore, there is no merit in the above contention of the ld. AR. No other argument has been advanced. In view of our above discussion of the matter, there is no merit in the present appeal of the assessee and the same is hereby dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Kolkata, the 7th February, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ गर श अ वाल /Girish Agrawal] [संजय गग /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member Dated: 07.02.2024. RS 7 I.T.A. No.46/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Sri Abul Kalam Mohd Salim Ahmed 2. ITO, Ward-Karimganj 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches 8