9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity raised by the revenue against it u/ss. 115-O and 115-P of the Act. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the declining on the part of the Tribunal to address the grievance of the assessee as regards the raising of the demand u/ss. 115-O (tax) and 115-P (interest) by observing that the issue as regards quantification of DDT did not arise from the order passed by the CIT(A), is not found to be in conformity with the settled position of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex court in the afore mentioned judgments. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kuth Stock Exchange Ltd. [ 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was observed that a non-consideration by the Tribunal of a j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. It was submitted by the ld. Authorised representative (for short A.R ) that the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the aforesaid appeal suffered from a mistake, which being glaring, patent, obvious and apparent from record therein rendered it amenable for rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. Facts to the extent relevant for the disposal of the present application are viz. (i). the assessee had claimed to have deposited Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of ₹ 33,21,750/- u/s 115-O of the Act, vide a challan dated 17.05.2010 (as per Form 26AS ); (ii). that while e-filing the return of income the assessee due to an inadvertent mistake had reported an amount of ₹ 32,44,500/- in the Sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee and reject the same. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. It is submitted by the ld. A.R that the declining on the part of the Tribunal to address the grievance of the assessee, for the reason, that the same did not emanate from the impugned order is palpably incorrect and in fact inconsistent with the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that to constitute an assessment order , it is not necessary that the computation of total income and tax payable should be done on the same sheet of paper. As such, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that computation/quantification of the tax and interest liability of an assessee, though carried out on a different she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal, for the reason, that the issue as regards quantification of DDT did not arise from the order passed by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the CIT(A) had declined the assesse s claim on the basis of a misconceived fact that the assessee was seeking credit of DDT against its tax liability on the total income. We have given a thoughtful consideration and find substantial force in the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon ble Apex Court had Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) and CIT, Delhi Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxman.com 334 (SC) , had observed, that that computation/quantification of the tax and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich could be rectified under Sec. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee is rectified. We herein restore the matter to the file of the A.O, who is herein directed to verify the claim of the assessee that though it had deposited DDT of ₹ 33,21,750/- u/s 115-O of the Act, vide a challan dated 17.05.2010 (as per Form 26AS ), however, credit has been allowed only to the extent of ₹ 32,44,500/-. Resultantly, the impugned demand towards such short/deficit credit of DDT of ₹ 77,250/- u/s 115-O and interest u/s 115-P of ₹ 4,69,975/- had been raised by the revenue. In case the aforesaid claim of the assesses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
