9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursued, so as to prevent the assessee from facing unnecessary and avoidable harassment and expenditure in the process of re-assessment and also to save a wasteful exercise being undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer has completely failed to apply his mind to the submissions of the petitioner and also to examine as to how the two different Form 26 AS have been generated by the system. Set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 since it suffers from complete non-application of mind. The Assessing Officer shall proceed to pass a fresh order after dealing with the submissions raised by the petitioner in its objections. - W.P.(C) 13336/2019 and C.M. No. 54161/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2019 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TSYS India under the aforesaid ECB loan. 5. The further submission of the petitioner is that the TSYS India deducted tax at source on interest payment @ 10%. Such interest income of the petitioner was liable to be taxed in India as per the provisions of the Indo-Cyprus DTAA under Article 11 (2) thereof. The petitioner states that under Section 115A(5), the petitioner was not obliged to file any income-tax return on the said interest income, since the tax on such interest income already stands deducted and deposited. 6. The respondent issued the notice dated 30.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in relation to the Assessment Year 2012-13 to the petitioner, stating that the issuing officer has reason to believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils, as per which the total receipts of the petitioner during the Financial Year 2011-12 are to the tune of ₹ 53,32,622/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the said tabulation, there is duplication of six entries, which are mentioned in the Form 26 AS generated by the respondents and filed with the petition at page 51. 11. Firstly, the Assessing Officer while passing the order, should have applied his mind to determine as to what has caused the discrepancy in the two Form 26 AS, i.e. the one relied upon by the petitioner, and the other relied upon by him. He has not adverted to the said discrepancy. Pertinently, both these forms have been generated by the system of the respondent Department itself. Seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
