9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acknowledge by holding that the PAN given by the deductor was with respect to the Karta of the HUF and therefore, it was a wrong mentioning of the PAN by the deductor which cannot be rectified at the Assessing Officer's end. Thus AO knew that the Karta has not been given credit of the tax paid in view of the deductor not claiming deduction on account of rent paid to the Karta but to the HUF. It was a simple mistake apparent on record and in fact was rectified by the AO as per the order u/s.154 by AO for the immediately preceding AY. CIT(A) has complicated the issue of a simple rectification to be carried out when the AO had carried out the same in the immediately preceding AY by holding a view that the ball was neither in the court of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the assessee before him for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was passed on to the assessee as a blame for indicating the incorrect PAN by the deductor. He submitted that the tenants are banks and are therefore obliged to give the PAN in accordance with the tenancy agreement when the Karta of the HUF was the first party. The bank requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N 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 from record not to give credit to the TDS in the facts and circumstances of the case in the context of section 199 substituted with effect from the impugned assessment year and rule 37BA made under this section. He contended that Section 199 provides for mandatory treatment of TDS paid as tax payment on behalf of the person fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead 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 subjected to the provisions of Chapter XVIIB was not probed at the time of passing of the order, the assessee being the recipient. The assessee has claimed the tax deduction which the Assessing Officer refused to acknowledge by holding that the PAN given by the deductor was with respect to the Karta of the HUF and therefore, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
