2021 (8) TMI 223 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Deduction u/s 80 IA denied - petitioner contended that the deduction u/s 80 IA was not granted to the writ petitioner and thus the Assessment Order is perverse - HELD THAT - Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in view of the fact that the writ petition is pending for long years, the petitioner has not pursued the appeal and the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the disputed facts raised by the petitioners regarding the application of Section 80 IA of the Act as well as the errors in computation of income are to be adjudicated before the ITA. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the disputed facts and objections before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall look into those aspects, considering the case on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order and Rectification Order under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order and Rectification Order, claiming entitlement to deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the Assessment Order was improper and not in line with the information provided in the return of income. It was argued that the deduction under Section 80 IA was not granted, leading to a perceived perversity in the Assessment Order.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but due to the prolonged nature of the writ petition, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA), which is still pending. The High Court noted these proceedings and directed that all disputed facts related to Section 80 IA and income computation errors should be adjudicated before the ITA.

The High Court emphasized that the ITA is the appropriate forum to consider the disputed facts and objections raised by the petitioner. It was ruled that the ITA has the authority to examine the case on its merits and in accordance with the law. The court directed the petitioner to raise all grounds before the ITA, including those presented in the writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, stating that all issues raised should be addressed before the ITA. The petitioner was granted the liberty to present their case before the ITA, which is empowered to consider the matter in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.