9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a huge delay of 2176 days in filing of the appeal before ld. CIT(A) beyond the time prescribed u/s. 249(2) of the Act, and the assessee could not submit sufficient/ justifiable cause for delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A). This requires investigation of facts which can be ascertained only after enquiry. We direct the ld. CIT(Appeals) to make enquiry as to the manner in which the service was effected by the Revenue of the Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on the assessee, and to arrive at the finding/conclusion whether service of intimation u/s 143(1) effected by CPC was in compliance to section 282 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 127 of the 1962 Rules. As decided in Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Enterpreneurship, Ludhiana [ 2024 (3) TMI 479 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] as held that merely uploading of the communication(notice) in the Income Tax department e-portal is not sufficient mode of communication keeping in view principles of natural justice which are inherent in income tax proceedings as also keeping in view provisions of Section 282 of the 1961 Act and Rule 127 of the 1962 Rules. When technicalities are pitted against advancement of substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the action of learned AO CPC who wrongly assessed to tax Rs. 1,12190/- just ignoring to the fact that appellant trust is Private discretionary trust who hold the status of Individual and will be liable to Tax at Normal rate instead of MMR. Therefore since income was below taxable limit, hence no tax liability would arise and be deleted. 6. The appellant trust denies liabilities to be assessed to interest u/s 234 A, B C. 7. That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed. 8. Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income belatedly for the impugned assessment year on 18.02.2017 u/s. 139(4) of the Act, declaring income of Rs. 2,41,000/-. The CPC processed the return of income and issued intimation/order dated 19.10.2017 u/s. 143(1) of the Act, computing income of the assessee at Rs. 2,41,000/- wherein returned income was accepted and applied maximum marginal rate (MMR) of taxation against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 04.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, while Appellant Trust is not a Charitable and Religious Trust and also not Registered u/s12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act but a Private Family Trust which is not liable for filing its Income Tax Return u/s139(4A) of the Income Tax Act. Moreover we are reproducing analysis of Sec 164(1) provided for Taxation of Private Discretionary Trusts: (a) When trust income includes any business income Proviso to section 164(1)In this case trust will pay tax at the rate 30percent plus SC plus HEC(b) When trust income does not include any business income Section 164(1) In this case trust will pay tax at the rate 30percent plus SC plus HEC EXCEPTION However, the maximum marginal rate will not apply in the following cases and relevant income will be liable to tax in the hands of the trustees as if it were the total income of an association of persons(i) where none of the beneficiaries has taxable income (Rs. 2,50,000 for assessment year 2020.21) is a beneficiary under any other private trust or (ii) where the relevant income or part of relevant income is receivable under a trust declared by any person by will and such trust is the only trust so declared by him or(iii) where the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contacted to our tax consultant who login on the Portal and found that tax has been charged at MMR instead of normal rate of tax and advised for filing of appeal against arbitrary demand 6. That I requested to the consultant that to prepare the appeal against intimation, thus on preparing the appeal now I am filing appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax act 7. That, I am also filing my Appeal due to consequence informed by income tax department officials as full recovery of all taxes as well as launch prosecution against both trustee 8. That the delay is caused due to issue narrated above facts which is beyond to my control Hence delay in filing the appeal against Intimation u/s 143(1)dated 19.10.2017 of the Income tax act is 2176 days but from the date of download to the said intimation is no delay which not came to my knowledge earlier but known on just recovery of arbitrary demand 9. That the delay in filling to this appeal is due to non knowledge of passing of any demand raised against trust, thus by virtue of said unavoidable reasons there is delay in filing the appeal 10. That I am also confirming all above facts on affidavit which is enclosed herewith for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of recovery of demand was received, immediately steps were taken to file appeal. It was submitted that if period of limitation is computed from the date of the downloading of intimation u/s 143(1) from IT e-portal, there was no delay in filing the appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was delay of 2176 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as assessee is not able to explain the reasonable cause/justification in filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(Appeals). It was submitted that application for condonation of delay was duly filed with ld. CIT(A) duly supported with affidavit, but ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on the merits of the issues arising in the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgments and orders in the case of : a) Mumbai ITAT order in the case of Phoenix Mills Limited v. ACIT, Mumbai in ITA no. 6240/M/2007 b) Judgment and order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereon u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C aggregating to Rs. 37,721/- was raised by CPC against the assessee. Thus, in aggregate, total demand of income-tax and interest of Rs. 1,12,190/- was raised against the assessee by CPC. Assessee filed first appeal belatedly with the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a delay of 2176 days beyond the time prescribed u/s. 249(2) of the Act, wherein the assessee has made legal challenge on merits before ld. CIT(A) to applicability of MMR to the assessed income against application of normal rate of taxation. Assessee had also submitted an application supported with affidavit for condonation of delay of 2176 days in filing the appeal belatedly with ld CIT(A) beyond the time prescribed u/s 249(2). It is the main contention of the assessee that the assessee was not aware of the processing of the return by CPC u/s 143(1), and consequently raising of total tax and interest demand of Rs. 1,12,190/- against the assessee vide intimation dated 19.10.2017, as the same was not served to the assessee, and it is only when the notice of demand for recovery issued by department was received by the assessee, the assessee came to know of the outstanding demand against the assessee vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnicalities are pitted against advancement of substantial justice, then the court will lean towards advancement of justice. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji Ors. 1987 AIR 1353. Thus, I am restoring back the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to firstly decide afresh on the application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit filed by assessee before ld. CIT(A), keeping in view the provisions of section 282 of 1961 Act read with Rule 127 of the 1962 Rules as well judicial precedents in the matter, after making necessary enquiry as to the effecting of service of intimation dated 19.10.2017 u/s 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru, as it requires investigation of facts. Once ld. CIT(A) adjudicates on condonation of delay application/affidavit filed by the assessee, then thereafter, if the ld. CIT(A) decides to condone the delay on merits, then ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee on merits in accordance with law. I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issue arising in this appeal nor on the merits of the condonation of dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
