9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1473 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - TDS credit has been reduced resulting into demand - AR has submitted that the assessee has already refunded the proportionate Income Tax Refund to the other entity which would further strengthen the assessee s claim to get full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS - HELD THAT - As relying on S. GANESH NARAYAN BRIJLAL LTD. 2016 (8) TMI 823 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , BHOORATNAM CO. 2013 (1) TMI 478 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT and M/S RELCOM 2015 (11) TMI 284 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that on the facts and circumstances, the assessee would be entitled to get the full credit of TDS as reflected in Form 26AS subject to verification of the fact that the corresponding claim of TDS has not been made by the other entity namely M/s Shapoorji. For the aforesaid limited purpose, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to file the requisite documents / evidences, in this regard. Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Withdrawal of TDS credit and raising of consequential demand. 3. Validity of rectification without prior notice under Section 154(3). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of the Order Passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming the Assessing Officer's (AO) rectification order under Section 154, which withdrew TDS credit of ?1,06,50,182 and raised a demand of ?1,26,23,560. The assessee argued that the TDS certificates were in its name and that the AO had allowed the TDS credit in the original and revised returns. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the income and corresponding TDS were correctly accounted for by the assessee and that the Department cannot retain the tax deducted without crediting it to anyone, which is against the spirit and intention of the law. 2. Withdrawal of TDS Credit and Raising of Consequential Demand: The facts reveal that the assessee filed its original return for AY 2009-10, declaring an income of ?54.56 Lacs and claiming TDS credit of ?109.31 Lacs. The return was revised to declare a loss of ?432.37 Lacs and reduce the TDS claim to ?2.81 Lacs due to a composite scheme of arrangement approved by the Bombay High Court. Despite this, the AO allowed full TDS credit of ?109.31 Lacs in the assessment framed under Section 143(3). The AO later rectified this under Section 154, withdrawing the excess TDS credit and raising a demand. The assessee argued that the TDS certificates were correctly claimed and that the AO's rectification was unjustified. 3. Validity of Rectification without Prior Notice under Section 154(3): The rectification order under Section 154 was issued without prior notice to the assessee, which is a procedural requirement under Section 154(3). The Tribunal noted that no notice was issued before passing the rectification order, thus violating the procedure laid down in the law. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural fairness is essential, and the lack of notice rendered the rectification invalid. Judicial Precedents and Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including decisions from the High Courts of Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh, and Delhi, which supported the assessee's claim for TDS credit. These precedents established that the assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the corresponding income is accounted for, even if the TDS certificates are in the name of another entity, provided that the other entity has not claimed the TDS credit. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to the full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS, subject to verification that the other entity (M/s Shapoorji) has not claimed the TDS credit. The matter was remitted back to the AO for verification. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 25th June 2019.
|
