9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 2,53,376. We direct the A.O. to grant the benefit of TDS claimed by the assessee in respect of income disclosed for assessment year 2016-2017 in view of the provisions of section 199 r.w.s. 205 (also refer to Rule 37BA(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. With these directions, we restore the issue to the files of the A.O. A.O. is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.305/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2021 - Shri George George K, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sri.Ningoji Rao, CA For the Respondent : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable period, the assessee was forced to file this appeal. The appeal filed before the ITAT belatedly was only on account of the assessee-firm was hoping to get relief from the first appellate authority on its Sec.154 application and the lockdown due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The delay cannot be attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee and there is `sufficient cause for filing this appeal belatedly. Therefore, the delay is condoned and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 2016- 2017, the return of income was filed on 07.09.2016 declaring total income of ₹ 9,57,380 and claimed the credit for TDS of ₹ 2,94,51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year 2016-2017, the AS-26 for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, etc. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of TDS credit in respect of income disclosed in the current assessment year in light of the provisions of section 199 r.w.s. 205 of the I.T.Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following case laws:- (i) Smt.Anusuya Alva v. DCIT reported in 278 ITR 206 (Kar.). (ii) Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT * Ors. [2007) 293 ITR 539 (Bom.) (iii) ACIT Ors. V. Om Prakash GAttani [2000] 242 ITR 638 (Gau). (iv) CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. Ors. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj.) (v) Capt.J.G.Joseph v. JCIT 303 ITR (A.T.) 395 [ITAT, Mumbai]. 5.1 It was further submitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
