9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the application under section 154 and, thereby directing the Assessing Officer to allow interest on the amount of refund of TDS payment? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have appreciated the issue was debatable and the claim could not have been allowed under section 154 of the Act? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of the Order under Section 154: The primary issue revolves around the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order, which directed the Assessing Officer to allow interest on the amount of refund of TDS payment. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee had deposited advance tax and was also entitled to credit for TDS. Initially, a refund was granted without considering the TDS credit, leading to a subsequent refund order which did not include interest on the additional refund amount. The assessee's application under section 154 sought to rectify this by claiming interest under section 214. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) denied the interest, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found this to be erroneous, directing recalculation of interest by first deducting TDS from the tax payable and then considering the advance tax. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, aligning with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and citing the Supreme Court's decision in Modi Industries v. CIT, which clarified that tax paid, including TDS and advance tax, retained by the Assessing Officer and later refunded due to appellate orders, is subject to interest under section 244(1A). The Tribunal's agreement with this interpretation underscores the necessity of adjusting TDS before advance tax in tax computations. 2. Debatable Issue and Section 154 Application: The second issue questions whether the Tribunal failed to recognize the debatable nature of the claim, which would preclude its allowance under section 154. The legal provisions of the Income-tax Act are clear that TDS must be adjusted before considering advance tax for computing tax liability. Sections 191, 199, and 209 mandate that advance tax liability is determined after adjusting TDS. The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer's method of adjusting advance tax before TDS was contrary to these provisions, making the error apparent and not debatable. The judgment emphasizes that the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the rules framed thereunder clearly dictate the order of adjustments. The mistake in the computation by the Assessing Officer was evident and did not involve weighing different interpretations, thus fitting within the scope of rectification under section 154. The court concluded that the answer to the questions posed was self-evident and did not warrant a reference, as the mistake was apparent and contrary to the Act's clear provisions. Conclusion: The court rejected the application, affirming that the Tribunal correctly upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. The error in the computation of refund by the Assessing Officer was apparent and contrary to the Income-tax Act, justifying rectification under section 154. The questions posed were deemed self-evident, and the application for reference was declined.
|
