9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts ground is allowed. Assessee has prayed to award the cost of filling this appel, travelling expenses and advocate fees that is incurred on account of the revenues negligence - Since, the appeal of the assessee has been disposed under the faceless regim the contention that the officer should be made responsible is not possible under this faceless regime, where the personal contact is avoided and therefore, no prejudiced caused to the assessee. The judgement based on the set of facts understood by the ld. CIT(A) while discharging duty, action might have caused some hardship to the assessee due to error of judgement but that in our opinion does not warrant levy of cost on the Department. In the instant case, there is no such action of search and seizure which causes serious invasion in the privacy of the person. The Commissioner was discharging her quasi-judicial duty. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax was mala fide. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of assessee to award cost. The decisions relied on by the assessee are distinguishable as in the decision of case of Chiranji Lal Tak [ 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. 3,20,000 and Interest of Rs. 31,811/-). 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: 5. 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 fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof . Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion are the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Honorable, please also look into the working style of the Income Tax Commissioner Appeal. The assessing officer should have accepted the revised return submitted by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 therefore dismissed. In this respect, judge yourself whether it is a proper manner to decide the appeal by the CIT (A). It is a way of pushing in the litigation. I want to submit that at the time of deciding on the appeal the CIT (A) have not even consider the argument as well as the fact and the document already submitted before your good self. COST MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED TO ASSESSEE BY THE DEPARTMENT 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 CITA) in view of judgment of Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Chiranji Lal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of money to come to this Court and this Court has become untouchable and unapproachable by many litigants who cannot afford the large expense involved in fighting litigation in this Court. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that State Governments, which have public accountability in respect of their actions, should not lightly rush to this Court to challenge a judgment of the High Court which is plainly and manifestly correct and drag the opposite party in unnecessary expense, part of which would, in any event, not be compensated by an award of cost. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. S.R. Appeal dismissed. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the apple of discord in this appeal is that the assessee has filed its original return of income on 30.10.2019 which the extended due date of filling the return of income. Thereafter the assessee revised the return of income on 15.01.2020 which the AO CPC considered as original and thereby denied the current year loss of Rs. 3,51,811/-. The fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 arguments made by both sides. In our opinion the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has passed an order which is based on the set of facts placed or understood by him. Since, the appeal of the assessee has been disposed under the faceless regim the contention that the officer should be made responsible is not possible under this faceless regime, where the personal contact is avoided and therefore, no prejudiced caused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, therefore, relating to search and seizure in section 132 and rule 112 cannot be regarded as violative of articles 19(1)(f) and (g). A minor point was urged in support of the above contention that section 132 contains provisions which are likely to affect even innocent persons. For example, it was submitted, an innocent person who is merely in custody of cash, bullion or other valuables, etc., not knowing that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
