Shri Manjulaben Rameshbhai Parmar, Nadiad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4,, Nadiad

ITA 500/AHD/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50020514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABIPC7265Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 500/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Shri Manjulaben Rameshbhai Parmar, Nadiad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-4,, Nadiad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO.500/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2001-02. 1 IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD ( BEFORE SHRI_D.C. AGRAWA L ) ITA. NO. 500/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 -02 ) PARMAR MANJULABEN RAMESHBHAI 7/13 VISHVANAGAR FLATS OUTSIDE AHMEDABADI BAZAR NADIAD-387001. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 INCOME TAX OFFICER STATION ROAD NADIAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABIPC 7265 Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S.P. BHATT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.R.GHOSH ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER SHR D.C. AGRAWAL A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A)-IV B ARODA IN APPEAL NO.CAB/IV-N-94/09-10 IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS ARE RAISED IN HER CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02. 1. THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A)-IV BARODA ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AGREEING WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. A.O. T HAT THE MISTAKE ALLEGED TO BE APPARENT ON RECORDS WAS NOT D EBATABLE. 2. TAXABILITY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERE S ALARY CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.16 AS THE SAME WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF PARTICULARS AS PER RECORDS OF THE EMPLOYER COMPANY VIZ. GE(LIGHTING) PVT.LTD. NADIAD WHEN ALL THE OTHER EV IDENCES WERE SUBMITTED TO SHOW THAT CLAIM OF EXEMPTION RS.1 30 0 00/- WAS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION. ITA NO.500/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2001-02. 2 3. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN ITA NO.2309/AHD/2006 & ITA NO.2730/AHD/2004 IN THE CASE OF CHAUHAN JAYANTIBHAI RAMBHAI VS. ITO AND PATEL GHANSHYAMBHAI RATIBHAI VS. ITO AN D THE LD. JUDGES OF THE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE FACTS AND ALLOW ED APPEALS IN THOSE CASES (COIPES ENCLOSED). 4. COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DT.16-8-2003 W AS ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENT OF INCOME AND LIABILITY AND THE STATEM ENT SHOWING NET AMOUNT OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME FROM WHI CH IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM WAS GENUINE AND THE SAME WAS I N THE NATURE OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORDS IN THE CASE OF THE P ETITIONER. 5. THE PETITIONER WAS NOT IN KNOW OF INCOME-TAX MAT TERS AND ALSO ILLITERATE PERSON AND FAILED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS PREPARED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF T HEN TAX ADVISOR AND THAT THE CLAIM OF REFUND WAS EXCESS TDS MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT REQUI RED TO DO. THE PETITIONER FURTHER RESERVES HER RIGHTS TO ADD ALTER MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BE FORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS 1 58 700/- ON 31-5-2002 CLAIMING REFUN D OF RS.776/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND REFUND OF RS. 853 WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH INTEREST OF RS.77/-. 3. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT TO THE A.O. STATING THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED ON VRS AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 30 000/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (10C) WAS NOT CLAIMED BY OVERSIGHT. ACCORDINGLY RELIEF U/S. 89(1) WAS SOUGH T BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IF GRANTED WOULD RESULT IN REFUND OF RS.5394/-.THE A.O . REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT APPLICATION U/S. 154 IS BEYOND T HE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. EVEN OTHERWISE AC CORDING TO THE A.O. THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS FOR THE FOL LOWING REASONS :- (I) THE MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT FROM RECORD AS THE RECORD NAMELY THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS TH AT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 58 700/- WHICH WAS ITA NO.500/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2001-02. 3 ACCORDINGLY PROCESSED ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 5 8 700/- AND THE REFUND OF RS.776/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED (ALONG WITH INTEREST OF RS.77/- U/S. 244A OF THE AC T). (II) IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOWHERE MADE ANY CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF V.R.S. AMOUNT OF RS.1 30 000/- NOR CLAIMED RELIEF U/S. 89(1) OF THE ACT NOR PRESENTED ANY DOCUMENTS IN THE RETURN IN SUPPORT OF HER PRESENT CLAIM OF RE LIEF U/S. 89(1) OF THE ACT. (III) PERUSAL OF FORM NO.16 FILED ALONG WITH THE RE TURN ALSO REVEALS THAT NO SUCH CLAIM OF V.R.S. AMOUNT OF RS.1 30 000/- IS SHOWN AS EXEMPT BY THE EMPLOYER. 4. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 5. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. HE HELD AS UNDER :- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. UNDER SECTION 143 (1)(II) AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING IF ANY REFUND IS D UE ON THE BASIS OF RETURN IT IS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AN INTIMATION TO THIS EFFECT IS TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NO POWER TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE RETURNED INCOME U/S. 143 (1) WHEN THE PROCESSING WAS DONE IN APPELLANTS CASE. AS ACCEPTE D BY THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME U /S.143(1) TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME AND THE AC COMPANYING DOCUMENTS AND ALSO GRANTED REFUND CLAIMED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. IT IS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM REC ORD WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE RECTIFIED U/S. 154. 6. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT MENTIONED THAT IT HAS RECEIVED RS.1 30 000/- I N VRS U/S. 10(10C). HE REFERRED TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHOWING THE R ECEIPT OF VRS AMOUNT OF RS.1 30 000/- AND ALSO COVERED U/S. 10(10C).THE REL EVANT COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND LIABILITY IS ANNEXED ON PAGE-17 OF ASSES SEES PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS BY MISTAKE ASSESSEE DID NOT CL AIM THE REFUND IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN BUT FOR THAT MATTER IF RELIEF IS LEGALLY AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TECHNICAL ISSUES SHOULD NOT DE-BAR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RELI EF CLAIMED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAYANTIBHAI R. ITA NO.500/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2001-02. 4 CHAUHAN VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2309/AHD/06 PRONOUNCED ON 2-1-2007 MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. SINCE IN THAT CASE ALSO VRS AMOUNT WAS RS.1 30 000/- AND THAT ASSESSEE ALSO FORGOT TO CLAIM THE RELIEF U/S.10(10C) AND HIS APPLICATION U/S. 154 WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE A.O. THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER SENT THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. TO RE-CONSIDER THE GROUND OF RELIEF. THE SAME ORDER SHOULD ALSO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 7. AGAINST THIS LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO/ CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAYANTIBHAI R. CHAUHAN (SUPRA) IN THAT CASE SINGLE MEMBER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UND ER :- 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVI SED COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMING THEREIN TH AT SAID SUM OF RS.1 30 000/- WAS ALSO A PART OF VOLUNTARY RETIREME NT SCHEME AND THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXEMPTED. THIS CONTENTION O F ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GOING IN TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO.16 AND HIS ORD ER IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER AS TO WHY THE SAID SUM OF RS.1 30 000/- DID N OT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTED CATEGORY AS PER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SIM ILAR APPROACH IS ADOPTED BY LD. CIT (A). IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERE D NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAK ING ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW A FTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. I DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR ABOVE DECISION WE RES TORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO P ASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF LAW. ITA NO.500/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2001-02. 5 10. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5 / 7 /2010. SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. AHMEDABAD. DATED: 5/7 /2010. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR. ITAT AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGIST RAR ITAT AHMEDABAD.