Amar Avinash Associates 5/54, Mahesh Niwas, L.T. Road No.3, Goregaon (W),Mumbai-62. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-42 Mumbai.
June, 03rd 2015
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI "A" BENCH
Before S/Sh. I P Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
/.ITA No.1630/Mum/2013, /Assessment Year-2003-04
Amar Avinash Associates DCIT, Central Circle-42
5/54, Mahesh Niwas, L.T. Road Mumbai.
No.3, Goregaon (W),Mumbai-62. Vs
PAN: AADFA 1628 D
( /Appellant) ( / Respondent)
/Assessee by : Shri Prasad Bapat
/ Revenue by :Shri Asghar Zain
/ Date of Hearing : 01 -06-2015
/ Date of Pronouncement : 01 -06-2015
, 1961 254(1)
Order u/s.254(1)of the Inco me-tax Act,1961(Act)
PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order dated 26/12/2012 of CIT(A)-18, Mumbai,the assessee has raised the
following Grounds of appeal:-
"Being aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 18, Mumbai
U/Sec. 250 dated 26.12.2012, your appellant submits the following 'Ground of Appeal' for your
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax
(Appeals)-18, Mumbai erred in ignoring the provisions of Sec 246A( 1)( c) and stating that the
assessee can not file any appeal against the rejection of rectification application by AO.
2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals )-18, Mumbai erred in confirming action of
Assessing Officer of not allowing interest U/s. 244A on refund of Rs.9,25,902/-.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax
(Appeals )-18, Mumbai erred in not appreciating that as per scheme of section 244A(2) the' Aa'
was not authorised to take unilateral & ex-parte decision and hence the order passed by the Aa
is bad in law being without jurisdiction.
3. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend/ withdraw existing ground; raise new ground
of appeal at the time of hearing."
The assessee-firm,filed its return of income on 8.2.2006,declaring total income of Rs.25.19 lacs.
The Assessing Officer(AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the
Act on 29.12.2006 determining the income at Rs.25,19,460/-.
2.A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 19.11.2004 at the
residential premises of Amar H. Manjrekar,by the Investigation Wing, Pune,who is one of the
partners of the assessee firm. Incriminating documents/articles of the assessee were found and
seized during search and seizure operations. The assessee filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act
ITA/1630/Mum/2013,AY.03-04-Amar Avinash Associates
on 7/5/2009 for setting off brought forward business losses.The AO passed the order under
section 154 of the Act on 20.3.2009 and allowed the set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 46.
53 lacs.The assessee further filed an application for rectification order dt. 24/3/2009 about grant
of refund and reducing interest under section 234C of the Act.Vide his order dt. 29/6/2009, the
AO refused to pass rectification order as prayed by the assessee .
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority (FAA). Before him,it was stated that refund of Rs.9.25 lacs was due to the assessee on
which interest under section 244A was not granted, that it had filed rectification application for
granting of interest under said section, that the AO denied the same without examining anything
about the delay and mentioning that taxes were paid as per returned income, that there was no
delay in issuing refund on account of any lapses from the assessee's side, that the AO had not
granted opportunity of hearing under section 244A(2) of the Act, that his ex-parte decision was
not as per provisions of the Act. The FAA during the appellate proceedings asked the assessee to
explain as to whether any appeal could be filed against the rejection of the rectification
application.As per the FAA,the assessee did not file any reply in that regard. Referring to the
provisions of the Sec.246A of the Act, the FAA held that the assessee could file appeal under the
different sections of the Act, hat there was no power with the FAA to deal with appeal filed by
the assessee,that the assessee could not file appeal against rejection of application by AO.
Treating the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous,he dismissed it.
4.Before us,the Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that the FAA had ignored the
provisions of s.246A(1)(c) of the Act, that the assessee was entitled to file appeal against the
rejection of rectification application,that the FAA had confirmed the action of the AO of not
allowing interest under section 244A on refund on Rs.9.25 lacs.The Departmental Representative
(DR)supported the order of FAA.
5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the
provisions of s.246A(1)(c) clearly stipulate that an appeal can be filed against rejection of
rectification application filed under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
we are restoring back the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. He would decide
the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee . Effective
ground of appeal, filed by the assessee is allowed in its favour in part.
ITA/1630/Mum/2013,AY.03-04-Amar Avinash Associates
As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st,June,2015.
( /I P Bansal) ( / RAJENDRA)
/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
01. 06. 2015
. .. Jv.Sr.PS.
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant / 2. Respondent /
3.The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT /
5.DR A Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / , ,.. .
/ BY ORDER,
/ Dy./Asst. Registrar
, /ITAT, Mumbai.