9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, in the case on hand, the assessee has admittedly filed a rectification application on 18.03.2017; which is barred by limitation being filed belatedly with a delay of almost three years. All the averments to the contrary put forth by the assessee / learned AR, as to what the AO / CIT(A) ought to have done / not done etc., does not come to the assessee’s rescue as the assessee has not been able to establish the basic requirement; i.e., that its rectification application dated 18.03.2017 before the AO was maintainable as per the relevant mandate of the provisions of section 154(7). With due respect, as perused the judicial pronouncements cited are rendered in contexts that are different from the issue of dispute in the case on hand i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-3, Bangalore, dated 29.06.2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein he has raised the following grounds in which various arguments have been put forth:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 29-06-2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the application filled by the Appellant seeking rectification of assessment order passed for the assessment year 2008-09 U/S 154 of IT Act 1961 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation. 5. The only grouse of the Appellant against the rectification order dated 01-05-2017, which prompted him to prefer an appeal before the CIT(A) was incorrect tax credit allowed by the assessing authority in his rectification order, even though TDS certificate in form - 16 for the assessment year 2008-09 was furnished along with the ITR submitted for the assessment year 2008-09. Legally the Appellant was entitled for seeking tax credit of ₹ 48,368.00 which was denied to the Appellant without assigning any reason for such denial. 6. The rejection of rectification request of the Appellant by the assessing authority on the ground of limitation was never a ground for preferring the appeal before the learned CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prays before this tribunal to set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) 86 direct the assessing authority to allow credit of income tax claimed by the appellant as per TDS certificate enclosed to the ITR submitted for the AY-2008-09. 10. Without prejudice the levy tax and interest is excessive, arbitrary and also the same needs to be deleted. 11. For such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that this Hon'ble authority may kindly allow the above appeal in the interest of justice and equity. 3.2 The learned AR for the assessee was heard and he reiterated the arguments put forth in the grounds raised in this appeal (supra). The assessee has also filed a Paper Book (pages 1 to 14). In support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was rejected. 3.4.2 The only dispute raised in the appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee, as before AO in rectification proceedings, was non-grant of TDS credit of ₹ 48,368/- as per Form No.16 issued by his employer, Government of Karnataka. According to the averments of the assessee, inter alia, the AO has allowed credit of ₹ 13,797/- (which includes Advance Tax paid of ₹ 10,321/- and TDS for ₹ 3,000/- only as against ₹ 48,368/- of TDS credit claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal on grounds of assessee s rectification application dated 18.03.2017 being barred by limitation as mandated by the Act; whereby the assessee ought to have filed the rectification application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 154 of the Act mandates that no amendment / rectification shall be made after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. Therefore, in the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), the assessee ought to have filed the said rectification application under section 154 of the Act on or before 31.03.2014. However, in the case on hand, the assessee has admittedly filed a rectification application on 18.03.2017; which is barred by limitation being filed belatedly with a delay of almost three years. All the averments to the contrary put forth by the assessee / learned AR, as to what the AO / CIT(A) ought to have done / not done etc., does not come to the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
