Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar Bhutani, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 21 March, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'F' NEW DELHI
BEFORE
SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 4814/Del/2016
AY: 2014-15
Raj Kumar Bhutani, vs ACIT,
D-70A, Circle-28(1),
East of Kailash, New Delhi.
New Delhi.
(PAN: AAGPB2474F)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Mrs. Sonia & Shri V.R. Sachdev, CAs
Respondent by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 08.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement: 21.03.2018
ORDER
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi dated 29.06.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2014-
15. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under:-
"1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case the order u/s 154 dated 15-07-2015 (communicated to the appellant vide Ref No. CPC/1415/U/41510681684) not allowing the deduction of Rs 3,58,99,278 claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and on fact and Ld CIT (Appeals) - X is wrong in upholding the same by passing order dated 29-06-2016.ITA No.4814/Del/2016
Assessment year 2014-15
2. Ld CIT (Appeals) - X is wrong in not considering the sale deed (Purchase Deed for the appellant) dated 07-09- 2013.
3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ACIT, (CPC) Bangalore is wrong in treating the revised return filed by the appellant on 30-07-2014 as invalid return and not linking the return of income filed by the appellant on 10-02-2015 (merely due to technical error) and CIT (Appeals) is wrong in upholding the same.
4. The Ld. ACIT, (CPC) Bangalore was incorrect in treating the return filed on 10-02-2015 as technically late return not allowing the deduction of Rs 3,58,99,278 claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which was filed by the appellant as a revised removing all the defects in response to 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) and CIT (Appeals) is wrong in upholding the same.
5. The appellant craves his right to add any new ground or amend any ground during the Appellate Proceedings."
2. The present appeal emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT (A) wherein the assessee's appeal was dismissed on the issue of allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee is an individual and e-filed the original and the revised return on 30.07.2014. On 23.01.2015, notice u/s 139(9) of the Act was issued wherein it was mentioned that the return of income was being considered as being defective as it was having certain defects. In response to this notice, the assessee filed the revised return on 10.02.2015 and also mentioned the receipt number of 2 ITA No.4814/Del/2016 Assessment year 2014-15 the original return along with the date of filing of original return. Subsequently, intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued in respect of the revised return filed by the assessee and a demand of Rs. 98,01,754/- was communicated to the assessee. Against this rectification order, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that CPC Bangalore had rightly raised the demand as the return was filed late and the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was not maintainable. Now, the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged this action of the Ld. CIT (A).
3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed the original return for assessment year 2014-15 vide Acknowledgement number 289316691300714 by claiming refund of Rs. 2,38,383/- on 30.07.2014. Thereafter, after filing this original return, it came to the knowledge of the assessee that he had made an excess claim of TDS amounting to Rs. 2,31,840/-. Therefore, the revised return was filed on the very same date i.e. 30.07.2014 vide Acknowledgment no. 289608131300714. It was further submitted that the assessee got a communication from CPC Bangalore dated 23.01.2015 that the revised return submitted by him was defective. In response, the assessee filed 3 ITA No.4814/Del/2016 Assessment year 2014-15 the revised return on 10.02.2015 vide Acknowledgment no. 479311871100215 by inadvertently giving reference of the original return i.e. Acknowledgment no.289316691300714. It was further submitted that by doing so, the revised return and the communication reference u/s 139(9) could not be linked in the record of the CPC. It was further submitted that thereafter the assessee received an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act with a demand of Rs. 98,01,750/- on 17.06.2015 and the reason for raising the demand was that the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 3,58,99,278/- was not given to the assessee. It was further submitted that in response, the assessee filed online rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 29.06.2015. However, the rectification order u/s 154 was again passed with the same demand as generated u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the exemption u/s 54F had rightly been claimed by the assessee but the same had been rejected by CPC Bangalore without passing a speaking order. It was also submitted that the mistake in filing of the return occurred due to the assessee himself filing the return and not taking the help of any professional. It was submitted that suitable directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to treat the original return filed 4 ITA No.4814/Del/2016 Assessment year 2014-15 on 30.07.2014 as the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and give benefit of claim of exemption u/s 54F to the assessee.
4. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT (A).
5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material available on record. It is apparent that the assessee's return bearing Acknowledgment no. 289316691300714 was treated as non est as the assessee filed a revised return on the very same date bearing Acknowledgment no.289608131300714. Thereafter, a revised return filed in response to notice u/s 139(9) was treated as belated since the due date for filing of return was 31.07.2014. Accordingly, the assessee could not be granted benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. However, the fact does remain that the assessee had filed the return of income on 30.07.2014 which was before the last date of filing of return for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F and due to an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee, the benefit of deduction could not be allowed to him. On overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is our considered opinion that the assessee should be given the benefit of deduction u/s 54F if it has been rightly claimed in the first return of income bearing 5 ITA No.4814/Del/2016 Assessment year 2014-15 Acknowledgment no. 289316691300714. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the AO to duly consider the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 54F as per mandate of law by considering the assessee's return of income bearing Acknowledgment no. 289316691300714.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DT. 21st MARCH 2018
'GS'
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
By Order
Asstt. Registrar
6