9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather support the case of Revenue for the reason that the ITNS 65 and ITNS 50 i.e., Form for determination of tax payable and demand notice (in old scheme), now in computerization the computation sheet and demand notice is generated on the system which was created itself on 20.12.2019. In our view, the AO has made mistake in issuing original assessment order and subsequently rectified the mistake by issuing corrigendum which is a valid assessment order and hence, we reverse the finding of CIT(A) on this issue. Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits, the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT For the Respondent : Shri D.Anand, Advocate ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058671182 (1) dated 12.12.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One fact here is to be noted that the assessee in her return of income filed admitted total income at Rs. 3.25 lakhs and not the returned income noted by the AO at Rs. 6,37,862/- in the assessment order. Subsequently, the AO issued corrigendum i.e., corrigendum for assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 and the corrigendum was dated 21.12.2019. The AO in the corrigendum order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2019 computed the assessed income at Rs. 2,28,54,344/- by making an addition of Rs. 2,25,29,344/- under various heads. The assessee challenged the corrigendum passed by the AO to the order u/s. 143(3) dated 21.12.2019 before CIT(A) by challenging that the corrigendum issued by AO is completely against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and hence, is bad in law and is against the principles of natural justice. 4. The CIT(A) after going through the grounds raised by AO held that as per provisions of the Act, the AO has no power to either withdraw or modify or substitute one assessment order passed by him earlier with another assessment order subsequently. Accordingly, he quashed the corrigendum passed by AO. Aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of filing Return of Income and income returned mentioned in the assessment order are incorrect. The assessee will further be aware that the subject matter discussed in the assessment order dated 20.12.2019 regarding the deposit of SBNs is also not relevant to the case of the assessee as no such issue was raised by the Assessing Officer in the present case. The ld.CIT-DR stated that the Assessing Officer had issued a show cause notice dated 26/11/2019 to the assessee on the following issues: i. Unexplained Investment in precious stones ii. Unaccounted investment u/s. 69 iii. Negative cash balance treated as unexplained investment iv. Bogus claim off opening cash balance and realization of Sundry debtors. 5.1 Subsequently, on 21.12.2019, the Assessing Officer issued a corrigendum to the assessment order where he mentioned that the assessment order dated 20.12.2019 should be read as mentioned in the corrigendum. The corrigendum mentions the date of filing of Return of Income and income returned under various heads by the assessee correctly. Further, the additions made are on the same points raised in the show cause notice dated 26.11.2019 and the total income determined is Rs. 2,28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied on the decisions of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Mondon Investments Ltd., in ITA No.4014/Del/2018, order dated 25.07.2023 and the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Philips India Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No.2308/Kol/2019, order dated 06.02.2023 and also the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of BVM Global Education Trust in WP No.10834 of 2024, order dated 25.04.2024. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has filed her return of income admitting total income at Rs. 3.25 lakhs whereas in the assessment order passed by AO dated 20.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the returned income accepted is at Rs. 6,37,862/- but along with this, the demand notice issued u/s. 156 of the Act and computation sheet dated 20.12.2019 categorically states additions to the tune of Rs. 2,25,29,344/- under various heads and in Form No.156 issued on 20.12.2019, the total tax payable was Rs. 1,11,55,972/-. We noted that in the assessment order originally issued dated 20.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the presumable issue relates to cash deposits made during demonetization p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order of some other assessee while issuing original assessment order dated 20.12.2019. The corrigendum issued on 21.12.2019 to the assessment order i.e., immediately on next day is exactly matching with the computation sheet and demand notice issued on 20.12.2019. For this, the ld.CIT-DR has relied on various case laws including the case law of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT reported in [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has defined the integrated process of assessment Assessment is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The latter is as crucial for the assessee as the former. Section 144, which also describes the same process, makes no distinction. The I.T.O. has to determine, by an order in writing, not only the total income but also the net sum which will be payable by the assessee for the assessment year in question and that the demand notice under Section 156 has to be issued in consequence of such an order. The statute does not, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be some writing initialed or signed by the ITO before the period of limitation prescribed, for completion of the assessment has expired in which the tax payable is determined and not that the form usually styled as the assessment order should itself contain the computation of tax as well. We noted that the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Prathyusha Educational Trust, supra has also considered exactly identical issue in paras 14 to 16 as under:- 14. We have noted the averments set out in paragraph 4 of the assessment order dated 28.03.2013, from which, it is seen that notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued as early as on 12.02.2013, wherein details were called for from the assessee, the assessee did not respond, summons under Section 131 of the Act was issued directing the Chairman of the assessee Trust to be present, the Chairman did not honour the summons nor submitted any details, subsequently the General Manager (Finance) of the assessee appeared but did not submit any details and subsequently, the Chairman appeared and stated that he will give the details by 21.03.2013 which commitment he did not honour. Before all these events could happen the assessee r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he corrigendum issued thereafter i.e., immediately on next day on 21.12.2019 carries the correct assessment order which was issued as a correct assessment order. Admittedly, the assessment order issued vide corrigendum is matching with the computation sheet and demand notice issued along with the original assessment order dated 20.12.2019. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court rather support the case of Revenue for the reason that the ITNS 65 and ITNS 50 i.e., Form for determination of tax payable and demand notice (in old scheme), now in computerization the computation sheet and demand notice is generated on the system which was created itself on 20.12.2019. In our view, the AO has made mistake in issuing original assessment order and subsequently rectified the mistake by issuing corrigendum which is a valid assessment order and hence, we reverse the finding of CIT(A) on this issue. 8. Since the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits, the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
