TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the assessee for all intents and purposes can be said to have been heard. 5. A perusal of the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rave;-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 the First Appellate Authority. 7. In the said background, the assessee has invoked the principles of natural justice and equity. 7.1. The record has been considered. Since the grievance appeared maintainable, accordingly, rejecting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O 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-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee [or by the deductor] on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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. The assessee has further assailed the action relying upon Article 265 of the Constitution of India pleading that tax can be levied only under the express provision of law and not on account of ignorance or mistake of the assessee. 9.6. Similarly challenge is also posed on the ground that the AO is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 is dealt with in the remaining grounds of appeal makes the objections raised in these grounds academic. The appellant succeeds in part on these grounds of appeal." 10. In the light of the above different set of reasoning, the issues raised are being decided under the following sub-issues: i) Limitation ii) What would constitute record? and iii) C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere 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 seek a proper adjudication on disputed facts. Such an action would be wholly unjustified. The systems and e-portals are still in the process of being fine tuned and still in the process of being perfected. They cannot be presumed to be so sacrosanct and final and thus beyond critical scrutiny. For the purposes of the present proceedings, I will confine myself to holding that every statutor....