TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Worthy Assessing officer, Sangrur is barred by limitation as the appellant filed an application for rectification on 01-12-2017 through e-portal which was transferred to the concerned A.O. on 05-12-2017 which was to be decided within six months as per section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months." 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr. DR addressing the aforesaid grounds was required to point out from the order whether the assessee can be said to have been heard before the passing of the order as violation of principles of natural justice have been pleaded by the assessee-appellant. 4. The ld. Sr. DR referred to written submissions of the assessee extracted in para 4.5 of the impugned order. Referring to these, it was submitted that the assessee appears to have been heard as submissions extracted can be said to have been considered as possibly that was the only argument of the assessee. Accordingly, it was her submission that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsation for purchase of land will be exempted from Stamp Duty and Registration Charges." 5.1. Accordingly, the following rectification in the order vis-à-vis the original computation was prayed for: Sr. No. Particulars Original ITR & Computation Rectified Computation 1. Assessment Year 2015-16 2015-16 2. Original (filed on 23-03-2017) No Revised Return filed by the assessee. 3. Income from Business and Profession Rs. 1,24,800/- Rs. 1,24,800/- 4. Income from Capital gain LTCG Rs. 18,91,963/- - 5. Income from other sources Rs. 1,81,488/- Rs. 7,415/- 6. Gross Total Income Rs. 20,16,763/- Rs. 1,32,220/- 7. Deductions(Chapter Vl-A) Rs. 1,24,800/- - 8. Net Total Income Rs. 18,91,963/- Rs. 1,32,220/- 5.2. However, the said request and prayer did not find favour with the AO who held that the assessee intends his case to be decided as per the particulars which were not shown in the return of income. 6. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the First Appellate Authority where the written submissions extracted in the order also did not find favour with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 26-12-2011.)" 9.1. On a consideration of the record and in the light of the aforementioned grounds which have been extracted, it is evident that the assessee had challenged the order passed upholding the jurisdiction of the AO despite the alleged violation of the statutory time line etc. In the facts of the present case, it can be seen that the order passed u/s. 154 was to be passed on or before 30.06.2018 and as per record, has been passed on 09.11.2019. The relevant facts available on record in regard thereto are that the rectification application was filed on 01.12.2017 through e-portal. This was transferred to the concerned AO on 05.12.2017 and the order was passed by the AO on 09.11.2018 i.e. after the expiry of six months. The relevant provision setting down the limitation of 6 months under whose shelter the challenge is posed is sub-section (8) of Section 154 which mandated that the AO was bound to pass an order within six months from the end of the month, date on which the application is received by the AO. The provision under discussion is reproduced for the sake of completeness: "154(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the exemption by including compulsorily acquired land without any restriction on area as well as classification of land. The claim had been made under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013 (RFCTLARR) which, it was claimed was made applicable from January, 2014. The assessee claimed to have inadvertently by mistake treated the amounts so received as a taxable event and sought rectification. 9.4. In the said background challenge is posed on the grounds that the rectification order wrongly treated the application as not maintainable on the ground that it was filed by the counsel whereas it had been filed by the assessee. The assessee in the detailed note extracted in pages 3 to 6 has put forth the claim that the mistake was brought to the notice of the AO on the instruction of the assessee by the counsel who only acted after the rectification application u/s. 154 was filed electronically by the assessee. It has been assailed that A.O. can't reject the claim simply because the appellant had shown it taxable in the return of income and there is no estoppel against the assessee to claim exemption. 9.5. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication u/s. 154 by the Officer. The Ld. AR argues that the rectification application had been disposed of in belated fashion and the order rejecting the application is non-est. The Ld. AO in his order u/s. 154 makes no reference to the e-filed rectification application. I have examined the submission of the Ld. AR, the findings of the Ld. AO and contextualized these to these grounds of appeal. That the appellant filed a rectification application online 01-12-2017 through his account on the e-filing portal http//www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in vide acknowledgment no. 322201290011217 is a matter of record. That this application was transferred to the A.O. on 05-12-2017 is also verifiable from record. It is my considered view that the rectification application duly e-filed was not disposed of within the statutory time limit and that the application referred to by the AO is a manual application filed later by the Counsel for the appellant which has been disposed of in the impugned order.-The manual application signed by the Counsel, is in itself not regular unless it is by way of a reminder with regards to the online application filed. That the substantive issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been deflected/obfuscated, it is remanded back for consideration afresh. 12. WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE 'RECORD' 12.1. In case the assessee does not succeed on the primary issue, the order again is open to the challenge on the grounds as to what would constitute the record for a case of rectification like this wherein the return is e-filed. 12.2. The record in a case where returns are e-filed, to my understanding, would not only constitute what is permitted to be e-filed on the e-portal but would also necessarily constitute all the facts and evidences taken into consideration for filing the necessary columns in the e-portal. This would include the orders and documents passed/made available by various other connected authorities as in the facts of the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer. Without getting into the aspect that it is only just and due taxes for the State which ought to be collected, it goes without saying that the limitations of documents only filed on e-portal cannot operate against the citizen taxpayers. The systems set in place for robust tax collection cannot be so used as to deprive the tax paying citizens from getting a fair hearing and see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is seen that written submissions had been advanced. It is seen that the submissions were considered but did not find favour with the First Appellate Authority as the order u/s. 154 stood confirmed. From the body of the order, it is not evident whether the assessee was confronted with the fact that its written submissions were not sufficient for relief prayed for and that the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard thereafter. 13.3. It is trite law that in the eventuality, written submissions of the assessee were found to be insufficient for granting relief and were considered to be not relevant, then the assessee should in all fairness be necessarily confronted with the fact that its claim was not allowable and be given due notice thereof. The purpose being that if the assessee still has something further to say, the opportunity of so saying should have been provided. The arbitrary presumption that the assessee shall have nothing to state cannot be upheld. The due process of law envisages an opportunity of fair representation. It is evident from the impugned order assailing which specific ground invoking principles of natural justice has been taken that the right to....