TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed/speaking order. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) has powers which are co-terminus with the powers of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. - ITA No. 234/ALLD/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2021 - Vijay Pal Rao, Member (J) And Ramit Kochar, Member (A) For the Appellant : Ashish Bansal, Adv. For the Respondents : A.K. Singh, Sr. DR ORDER Per Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 34/Alld/2016, is directed against an appellate order dated 29.09.2016 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-II/321/6(3) Banda/2014-15, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for assessment year(ay):2013-14, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 16.11.2014 issued by Central Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bangalore. We have heard both the parties through video conferencing mode through Virtual Court. 2. This appeal was heard by Division Bench(DB) on 28th July, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the regular assessment in this case is with ITO-6(3), Banda, U.P., as is discernible from Form No. 35 filed by assessee with ld. CIT(A) and Form No. 36 filed by the assessee with tribunal. It is also observed from copy of income tax return acknowledgement, dated 14.12.2013 for ay: 2013-14, that jurisdictional Assessing Officer is ITO 6(3), Banda (page 4/PB). The assessee has also filed petition u/s. 154 with ITO, Banda, U.P. (page 1 and 2/PB). Thus, the assessee is within the jurisdiction of the AO located at Banda, U.P. It is pertinent to mention that district Banda, U.P. falls under the jurisdiction of ITAT, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, and not under the jurisdiction of ITAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. Thus, the correct jurisdiction of the assessee in any case lies with ITAT, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The jurisdiction of tribunal is determined in accordance with the location of the Assessing Officer. Reference is drawn to Standing Order issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Refer Notification No. F. No. 63-Ad(AT)/97, dated 16.09.1997 as amended by Notification No. F. No. 63-Ad(AT)/2001, dated 19.10.2001, F. No. 63-Ad(AT)/2001, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s own disclosure and the appellant has not pointed out as to how the Intimation generated electronically is erroneous within the adjustments required to be done u/s. 143(1) of the Act, In my understanding there was no error in the Intimation generated and when it is so it is not understood as to how the present appeal would lie when appeal by its very nature is always in the context of some decision taken at the first level. If claim is neither lodged nor is adjudicated by the first authority appeal is not the remedy. In the context of the present appeal, it is seen that if at all there was some wrong statement or mistake in the return so filed the appellant could have chosen to either revise the return or ought to have sought revision u/s. 264 of the Act. Having failed to avail either of these opportunities, in my humble understanding appeal which is very limited in its scope is not the remedy. The appellant has filed this appeal without appreciating the limited scope available in appeal which scope is that in the appeal the mistake has to be pointed out within the ambit of the adjustments to be done. 4. In view of the above, rejecting all the three Grounds it is held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bom.). The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon decision of ITAT, Lucknow Bench decision in ITA no. 515/lkw/2018, dated 08.03.2019 in Cawnpore Cares Society v. ACIT. It was also submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had moved a petition under section 154 of the Act, on 23rd December, 2014 before ld. ITO, 5(4), Banda, U.P. (page 1 - of paper book), which has not yet been decided by Revenue. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that time limit for deciding petition u/s. 154 of the 1961 Act is six months and if the same is not decided, then it will be deemed to have been allowed. 5.2. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the income declared by assessee in its return of income filed with Revenue was accepted by Revenue and accordingly tax and interest payable was computed. It was submitted by ld. DR that the assessee did not revised the return of income and hence no benefit can be granted at this stage. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the materials on record. We have observed that the assessee had filed return of income electronically on 14th December, 2013 (page 4 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of the correct tax-payer. We have also considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Gulati(supra) Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Ltd. (Supra). We have also considered CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.04.1955, wherein the Department has given instruction to its officers and staff to assist the taxpayers in every reasonable manner in bringing to tax correct income. We have also observed that it is the assessee who has claimed to have made alleged mistake while filing return of income and now the assessee is resiling from its own position, thus, burden cast on assessee is very heavy. We are also of the view that the various documents/evidences filed by assessee in support of its contentions require verification. The claims of the assessee has been rejected by the CIT(A) only on the ground that returned income is accepted and secondly no revised return is filed. We have observed that Hon'ble Superior Courts have taken consistent view that appellate authorities have power to admit fresh claim, even if the same is not claimed through filing of revised return of income. Thus, keeping in view entire factual matrix of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
