Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Shri Salem Rangasamy Kumar, Chennai vs Adit , Cpc , Bangalore on 19 January, 2023
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ,चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI ी महावीर सह, उपा य एवं ी मनोज कु मार अ वाल, लेखा सद य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 570/CHNY/2022 िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Salem Rangasamy The ADIT, Kumar, vs. CPC, Flat No.4B, Jeypore Terrace, Bangalore. No.219/354, Avvai Shanmugham Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai - 600 086.
PAN: ABSPK 9146Q (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.01.2023 घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.NFAC/2019-20/10074099 dated 12.05.2022. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') was 2 ITA No. 570/Chny/2022 issued by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2020-21 vide order dated 02.12.2021.
2. At the outset, it is noticed from the order passed by CIT(A) dated 12.05.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 that the only issue raised before CIT(A) is as regards to the disallowance of belated payment of EPF amounting to Rs.34,098/-. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed appeal of assessee.
3. Now, when it was pointed out to ld.counsel for the assessee what is the grievance of assessee, he drew our attention to additional ground raised before us that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing exemption for Long Term Capital Gains on sale of land acquired by the Government under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) ["RFCTLARR" Act]. When a specific query was put to ld.counsel what was the issue before CIT(A), he could not controvert that only issue raised before CIT(A) was the disallowance of EPF payment paid belatedly and disallowance under challenge was only Rs.34,098/-, which the CIT(A) allowed.
3 ITA No. 570/Chny/2022
4. Now the questions arises, whether when the issue was not raised before CIT(A) and CIT(A) has already allowed the appeal of assessee and now, the assessee come in appeal before Tribunal against the same order. The ld. Senior DR stated that this appeal is not at all maintainable because the assessee should not aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). We agree with the argument of ld. Senior DR that the assessee cannot be aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) because the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee in toto, allowing the disallowance of belated payment of EPF. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of assessee as not-maintainable.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2023 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(मनोज कु मार अ वाल) (महावीर सह )
(MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH)
लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा य /VICE PRESIDENT
चे ई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated, the 19th January, 2023
RSR
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकरआयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.