TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee and by Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd. 3. That both worthy CIT(A) Amritsar & DCIT, Cir.5, Amritsar have failed to appreciate that the delay in payment of taxes due u/s 140A was unintentional." 3. In ITA No.187(Asr)/2014, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in his order that the A.O. was right in rejecting the application u/s 154 as the case has been processed u/s 143(1) whereas all the cited case laws for rectification was sought against passing of regular assessment order u/s 143(3). 2. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in observing that rectification is not possible if the question is debatable, mistake apparent from record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can established by a long drawn process of reasons on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions and documents outside the records and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154. 3. Whether the CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the mistake sought to be amended is not a prima facie mistake as is evident from facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the CIT(A) is justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en under Rule 11 of the ITAT along with the grounds already filed. 3) That the following additional grounds may please be admitted to be adjudicated upon the matter of Appeal. i) That the Long term Capital gain on the sale of agriculture land has been shown in the return as taxable income by mistake on the legal advice of the Ld. A/R which was not the Central Asset within the meaning of S.2(14)(iii) read with the Notification dated 6th January, 1994. ii) That the Ld. A/R of the assessee computed the Income tax payable by the assessee on the returned income also included the tax on Long Term Capital Gain which was not legally leviable as the agricultural land is not the capital asset and no tax is legally leviable by mistake. iii) That the return was prepared in the office of the learned A/R of the assessee and inadvertently the income tax as self assessment was shown as paid in the column which was not actually paid by the assessee as the other columns which was not actually paid by the assessee as the other columns of the schedule are left blank before filing of the return is an unintentional mistake. iv) That both the worthy CIT(A) and DCIT Cir.5, Amritsar failed to apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- on 31.12.07 and again on final payment of remaining sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- on 25.3.2008 rather it preferred to invest the entire sale consideration as unsecured to his family concerned, M/s. Nijjar Agro Foods Ltd. and as per details filed the assessee has got total investment of Rs. 3.94 crores as on 31.3.08 with the said sister concern. Furthermore, the assessee has been holding sufficient cash in hand at Rs. 15,24,457/- as on 31.3.08. Moreover, the assessee has himself shown net agricultural income of Rs. 11,46,465/- which remained available with him, being totally exempt from Income tax. In view of the constant non compliance on the part of the assessee, the AO issued specific notice u/s 221(1) along with letter dt. 23.11.09. Nevertheless, the above notice was got duly served on 25.11.09 but it remained uncomplied with, with the exception that the assessee's counsel file written reply on 15.12.09 (lying duly incorporated in the impugned penalty order u/s 221(1) at pages 3 & 4). After carefully considering the assessee's reply, the same did not find favour with the A.O. Inspite of the fact the ld. counsel for the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the payment of taxes is intentional or unintentional and the Bench has to decide whether there was default or not and if default was there for good and sufficient reason and whether penalty can be levied or not. The merits of the case cannot be argued by the ld. counsel and the additional ground taken on merits by the ld. counsel for the assessee should be dismissed. The Ld. DR further argued that filing of the return or wrong filing of the return by the assessee cannot lead to taking additional ground before the ITAT but the proper course would have been to file the revised return or to go in petition u/s 264 of the Act. It is serious lapse on the part of the assessee, who had given false declaration in return of income by showing self assessment tax having been paid, had in fact, not been paid amount to Rs. 67,31,828/-. Furnishing of the false verification in the return of income is also a serious lapse. No explanation for furnishing false verification, wrong particulars of return were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. It is only the AO who detected and pointed out to the assessee. But no explanation for serious lapse has been submitted before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 143(1) by the A.O. created a demand of Rs. 67,31,830/- against the assessee, as the assessee did not deposit tax under section 140A of the Act. The return of income in the present case was filed on 26.03.2009 which was a belated return. The assessee had claimed as per column no.9 (c) regarding tax paid i.e. self assessment tax of Rs. 63,71,260/- has been paid and tax payable as per column no.10 at page 2 of the return of income has been declared at Nil. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20.10.2009 creating a demand of Rs. 67,31,828/-, as the claim of the assessee regarding payment of self assessment tax of Rs. 63,71,260/- was found to be wrong since no taxes have been paid and wrong verification in the return of income was made. The intimation for the wrong and incorrect claim made by the assessee was given on 21.10.2009 to the assessee. In fact, the assessee submitted that the amount given to M/s. Nijjer Agro Foods, a family concern unless is received back; no taxes and interest can be paid by him. Such an explanation by the assessee can not go to prove a good and sufficient cause for not paying taxes u/s 140A of the Act. After even selling agricultural land in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasons on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Moreover, the documents outside the records and the law in impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154 of the Act. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The brief facts in the present case are that the assessee has suo moto filed his return dated 26.3.2009 for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs. 2,24,44,720/- comprising of salary of Rs. 9 lacs, LTC gain of Rs. 21544386/-, income from other sources at Rs. 335/- and agricultural income for rate purposes at Rs. 11,46,465/-. The above LTC gain has been reflected on the transfer of his agricultural holdings situated in village Meharbanpura, Tehsil, Amritsar-1, which later on claimed to be an agricultural land situated beyond 6 Kilometers from Amritsar Municipal Corpn. limits and as such does not fall as a capital asset u/s 2[14] of the Act but has suo moto determined his self assessment tax liability of Rs. 50 lacs. This return was pro....