9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) is not reasoned order and disallowance made by the assessing officer is confirm arbitrary and against the law and against the natural justice therefore liable for quash. 4. That cost (appeal fees + travelling expenses + advocate fees) may kindly be granted in respect of dragging the assessee in appeal due to negligence and carelessness of the CIT(A) in view of judgment of Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Chiranji Lal by treating the assessee and department at par. 5. That addition of Rs. 3,51,811/- is illegal and against the law is only account of negligence. 6. Without prejudice when the income is exempt in that case no tax should be charged." 3. The fact as culled out and recorded in the orders of the lower authorities is that the assessee has filed its original return of income belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20 on 15.01.2020. The due date for filing return of income for the said assessment year u/s 139(1) of the Act was extended to 31.10.2019. The return of income filed by the appellant u/s 139(4) of the Act was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowing current year losses of Rs. 3,51,811/- (Bonus of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy (2005) SC 2090 has held that nonspeaking orders by Tribunal, as well as Commissioner (Appeals), is violating the principle of natural justice and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, under the faceless appeal scheme, the Authorities are bound to pass the speaking order. The CIT (A) fails to pass the speaking order and passed the order in ten lines AND THE TAXPAYER HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY PUSHED INTO THE PIT OF LITIGATION. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL. In view of the above submission, you will observe that the addition made by the assessing officer is illegal and against the law without following the order of the tribunal. CONVERSATION OF PROOF INTO NO PROOF BY THE CIT (A) Respected sir, we fail to understand how the CIT (A) disbelieved the explanation/statements given by the assessee when both documents are the documents of CPC and converted good proof into no proof. Hon'ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [19631 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n submitted by the assessee which was in accordance with the law iii) That the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not reasoned order and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and against the law and against the natural justice iv) That the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from furnishing the appeal within the stipulated time v) That the claim of Rs.3,51,811 is in accordance with law. Respected sir just see the CIT (A) have decided the appeal in ten lines which is being reproduce here under: - Decision-: There are five grounds of appeal but they are condensed to a single issue which is assessee's grievance against CPC disallowing a sum of Rs.3,51,811 on account of current year's losses. After looking into the entire factual matrix of the case, I find that assessee's plea is untenable because losses can only be allowed when the return of income is filed within the stipulated time prescribed by the Act. It is noted from the order u/s 143 (1) of the Act that the returns were filed on 15.01.2020 whereas the due date u/s 139 (1) of the Act was 30.09.2019. Hence there is no infirmity in the order passed by the AO (CPC). The appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RWANI & PARTY vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS reported at 252 ITR 333 (Raj), The assessee is entitled to cost. Observation is as under:- "Litigation is not a luxury and/or amusement or entertainment. It is not pleasure or pleasant to come to the courts. Only when the Union or a State or its officers make it unavoidable, do the litigants come up before the court for redressal of their grievances or for enforcement of their legal or fundamental rights? The litigation is heavily cost (sic-costs heavily) and in the matter of awarding the cost, the court should have to keep in mind this aspect in such matters. It is no use or desirable that on the success of the litigant, he has been given only the token cost or the cost for the sake of the cost of the litigation. The litigants spent a huge amount in filing litigations." Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Narayan Vyankatesh Deshpande on 31 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1204, 1976 SCR (3) 980 The State Governments should not adopt a litigious approach and waste public revenues on fruitless and futile litigation where there are no chances of success. It is unfortunately a fact that it costs quite a large sum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Income A.Y 2019-20 filed on 15.01.2020 5-8 3 Copy of written submission dated 19.01.2023 with acknowledgment submitted before CIT(A) 9-13 5.2 In addition the above paper book and written submission so filed the ld. AR of the assessee, expressed his anguished on the lower authorities in not appreciating the facts even the same placed on record by the assessee or the same is available at the time of processing the ITR filed by the assessee. The only short issue that the original return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.10.2019 [ which is within the extended due by CBDT ] and thereafter the assessee revised the return on 15.01.2020 which CPC considered it as original return and has denied the current year loss of Rs. 3,51,811/-. This simple fact is not considered by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the revenue should pay cost of the efforts made by the assessee in bringing this appeal. 6. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and vehemently submitted that the CPC has processed the return filed by the assessee on 15.01.2020. 7. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee which will act as deterrent for illegal and non-speaking orders passed by the authorities causing loss to the assessee. 10. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly opposed the argument of learned counsel for the assessee. Based on the records both the lower authorities have passed the order. He submitted that in this case there is no illegal act, as the intimation has been issued by the system considering the system based control and based on that set of even the ld. CIT(A) has recorded similar facts. He further submitted that since the matter under consideration is quasi-judicial and has not reached finality, therefore, calling the order as arbitrary and perverse would amount to pre-judging the outcome of the appeal. There is nothing on record to demonstrate any mala fide on the part of the lower authority and the assessee has not resulted into any irreparable loss and the assessee is exploring the judicial right available under the law. Further, there is nothing on record that the assessee has been harassed. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the assessee to award cost should be dismissed. 11. We have considered the rival argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately returned to him. Even with regard to the books of account and documents seized, their return is guaranteed after a reasonable time. In the meantime the person from whose custody they are seized is permitted to make copies and take extracts. Sixthly, where money, bullion, etc., is seized, it can also be immediately returned to the person concerned after he makes appropriate provision for the payment of the estimated tax dues under sub-section (5), and, lastly, and this is most important, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to search and seizure apply, as far as they may be, to all searches and seizures under section 132. Rule 112 provides for the actual search and seizure being made after observing normal decencies of behaviour. The person in charge of the premises searched is immediately given a copy of the list of articles seized. One copy is forwarded to the authorising officer. Provision for the safe custody of the articles after seizure is also made in rule 112. In our opinion, the safeguards are adequate to render the provisions of search and seizure as less onerous and restrictive as is possible under the circumstances. The provisions, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
