9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment year 2006-07 regarding claim of TDS credit u/s 154.
Summary: 1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) and the assessee filed an application u/s 154 claiming credit of TDS at Rs. 6,53,865. The Assessing Officer declined the claim citing a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Limited, 284 ITR 323, stating that the claim should have been made through a revised return. 2. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision. The Authorized Representative argued that the credit of TDS was not allowed by the Assessing Officer despite the assessee's application u/s 154, which rectified other mistakes but not the TDS credit claim. The Representative contended that the TDS claim was admissible based on the TDS certificate and audited profit and loss account submitted with the return. 3. It was revealed that the assessee received job charges and supplied goods to a company that deducted TDS only on job charges, not on goods supplied. At the end of the year, the company deducted TDS on the supplies and included the total amount in the TDS certificate, unbeknownst to the assessee. Due to non-receipt of the TDS certificate, the assessee did not claim TDS credit in the original return. However, during assessment proceedings, the assessee mentioned the TDS credit, which was not considered, and assessment was framed u/s 143(3). 4. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Goetz (India) Limited did not restrict the Tribunal's power u/s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, unlike the Assessing Officer's power. As per Rule 37BA(3) and Rule 37BA(4), credit for TDS should be granted based on the information provided by the deductor and in the return of income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS certificate and corresponding income to allow the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee. 5. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 7th June, 2012.
|
