9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplicated the issue rendering it as a non- rectifiable mistake u/s.154. 2. The learned Counsel of the assessee initiating his arguments submitted the brief facts that in a similar fashion for the Assessment Year 2007-08 the Assessing Officer had passed order of rectification u/s.154 when a petition was made that the deductors wrong mention or non-mention of the PAN could not be held against the assessee was rectified by the Assessing Officer giving full credit on the very income being the lease rent received from the tenant who were to deduct tax at source u/s.194-I. He, therefore, submitted that a mere perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer would indicate that the very mistake that stood rectified by him on the petition filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned DR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel of the assessee and submitted that TDS credit was not given in the intimation under section 143(1) due to mismatch of the TDS certificates with the assessee. The certificates were in favour of Birendra Kumar Sahoo whereas the assessee is Chaturbhuj Sahoo, with PAN different from the assesse's. The assessee's petition under section 154 against the intimation was rejected. The assessee's appeal against the order rejecting its petition has been dismissed by the first appellate authority. The deductee is claimed to be the Karta of the assessee HUF and the payment subjected to TDS is house rent. Therefore, the issue that requires consideration is - Whether it is a mistake apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Rule 37BA(1). In view of the above, the learned DR contended that without the assessee (deductee) filing the declaration with the deductor with the specified content, the deductor reporting the TDS in the other person's name, not giving credit to the TDS is not a mistake apparent from record under Rule 37BA(2)(i)(c) read with Section 199. 4. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record. On our careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of case as brought on record by the authorities below, we are inclined to hold that the mistake which was sought to be rectified was apparent insofar as income had been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer not on the basis of TDS certificate to be subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deductor to the income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority was to be considered by the Assessing Officer w.e.f. impugned Assessment Year is of no avail insofar as the deductor will not file petition u/s.154 insofar as the Karta of the HUF is the deductee who is filing the declaration that the income so taxed in the hands of the deductee was subject to TDS which is to be availed by the HUF. In other words, it was a self declaration in the form of a petition u/s.154 was complied by the assessee as pointed out by the learned DR otherwise. The Assessing Officer was to take cognizance of these and because he had already rectified the same in the immediately preceding Assessment Year was a mistake apparent from record was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
