2022 (4) TMI 548 - AT - Income Tax

Withdrawing the excess tax credit for advance tax and self-assessment tax - Rectification u/s 154 - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) observed that as regards the jurisdiction of the AO at Bangalore to issue notice under Section 154 of the Act, there isn't any merit in the arguments of the appellant. There is no such requirement of the Act. The 'Income-tax authority' passing the order as referred to in Section 154 is the one which is having jurisdiction over the assessee in whose case the order is sought to be rectified. So on change in jurisdiction, the new jurisdictional AO can do this and in case of transfer the successor AO can do so. The assessee has to furnish details of different payments of tax by way of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax to the AO. The AO after verifying the same showing the various payments of tax by the assessee has to give due credit to those payments relating to the assessee s account and pass fresh order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. Appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rectification of excess tax credit for advance tax and self-assessment tax.
3. Proper crediting of tax payments made by the assessee at various stages.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 154:

The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in Bangalore to issue a notice under Section 154 of the Act, arguing that the original order was passed by the Assessing Officer in Hyderabad. However, the CIT(Appeals) held that the Income-tax authority passing the order sought to be rectified is the one having jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, a change in jurisdiction allows the new AO to rectify the order.

Issue 2: Rectification of excess tax credit:

The main issue revolved around the AO's withdrawal of excess tax credit for advance tax and self-assessment tax. The AO observed that the appellant was erroneously allowed excess credits. The appellant argued that seized cash should be treated as advance tax and self-assessment tax was paid, but failed to provide sufficient evidence. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant did not prove the payments, and the seized cash could not be adjusted as advance tax.

Issue 3: Proper crediting of tax payments:

The appellant contended that various tax payments were not properly credited by the AO, including advance tax, TDS, and self-assessment tax. The appellant claimed to have paid significant amounts, but proper credit was not given. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide details of tax payments, and the AO was instructed to verify and credit the payments accurately before passing a fresh order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remitting the issue of proper crediting of tax payments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing evidence for tax payments and ensuring accurate crediting by the tax authorities.