Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 26as in Shri Kana Ram Kumawat, Jaipur vs Ito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur on 16 August, 2021Matching Fragments
PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 11/09/2019 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under:
"1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed U/s 148/144 by ld. AO is illegal and bad in law and is invalid abinitio.
2. The assessee has filed his Income Tax Return on time, obtained the Tax Audit Report on time and the return so filed was processed and refund was granted by the department which is duly posted in 26AS by the department, despite that reassessment proceedings were initiated for the reason that the assessee did not file his ITR, thus the very basis of selection of the case for reassessment u/s 147/148 of the Act is ill founded, grossly incorrect and false and in contradiction with the facts available with the department, hence, the reassessment proceedings
"1. It is apparent that the assessee had complied with all the provisions of the Income tax as applicable to him for assessment year 2008-09 as below:
i. Obtained the audit report in terms of section 44AB of the IT Act, 1961 within prescribed time limit.
ii. Filed his ITR 5 ITA 1377/JP/2019 _ Kana Ram Kumawat Vs ITO iii. ITR was processed and refund was granted as reflected in 26AS.
iv. The Id. CIT(A) accepts in his order that the Assessee filed his ITR that is confirmed from form 26AS showing processing of the said ITR and granting of refund on 9.11.2009.
v. The CIT(A) also found that the assessee had obtained the Tax Audit Report within prescribed time limit, and accordingly deleted the penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271B of the Act.
2. Thus the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO for reopening the assessment u/s 148 were factually incorrect and ill founded, and without application of his mind, as the assessee has not only filed the ITR, the ITR so filed by the assessee was also processed on 9.11.2009 and refund was also granted, as reflected in the income tax site in form 26AS copy enclosed, it is highly biased on the part of the Ld. AO that he himself refers form 26AS to ascertain the contract receipts of the assessee to levy the income tax on him but fails to appreciate that the ITR filed by the assessee was processed and refund was granted for the relevant assessment year duly reflected in Form 26AS. Moreover the Id. AO computes the income tax on the basis turnover reflected in Form 26AS but categorically denies to allow credit of TDS reflected in the same form 26AS.
"In the case the assessee has not filed his ITR declaring total income u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the IT Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09 and filing of ITR has not been found from the AST system subsequently, the then AO issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 25.03.2015."
11. In this context, the ld. AR specifically submitted that the ITR in the present case was filed on time and the assessee had also obtained tax audit report and the report so filed was also processed and refund was granted by the department which is duly posted in 26AS by the department. However, despite that it is the factual position, the present proceedings were initiated on the reasons that the assessee did not file his ITR. The assessee has also relied upon the decision/judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shree Rajasthan Syntax Ltd. (2008) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) on the point that the A.O. had issued 8 ITA 1377/JP/2019 _ Kana Ram Kumawat Vs ITO notice in a mechanical manner without verifying the correctness of the information received by him.