9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s.143(1) i.e., intimation or processing of return of income vide letter dated 05.03.2012. The rectification order by the AO u/s.154 of the Act was passed only on 20.06.2016. It means, that the rectification order u/s.154 of the Act in the present case can be passed upto 31.03.2016 and not beyond that. In the given facts and circumstances and above legal position discussed, we are of the view that the rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act is clearly barred by limitation and hence, on this sole ground, the order is quashed. Credit of TDS - We are convinced that in term of the above CBDT Circular No.73(F.No.245/13/71-A PAC) dated 07.01.1972, the AO has to allow the credit of TDS as per law after verifying the TDS certificates. AO is ordered accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 requesting for giving credit for TDS of ₹ 42,75,145/- as against the claim of TDS allowed u/s.143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru of ₹ 14,62,550 /-. The assessee in his petition filed complete details in regard to credit of income as well as claim of TDS and TDS certificates in Form No.16A issued by HDFC and Citibank. The assessee vide letter dated 25.04.2016 reminded for passing of order u/s.154 of the Act, reminding AO of his application dated 13.08.2014. The AO passed rectification order on 20.06.2016 and considered the rectification petitions dated 13.08.2014 and 25.04.2016. The AO noted in his rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act, that the CPC, Bengaluru calculated income on LTCG at ₹ 66,13,11,764/- instead of ₹ 60,69,05,824/- failing to give credit for the cost of acquisition for a sum of ₹ 5,40,35,400/- as claimed by assessee and TDS credit claimed for a sum of ₹ 27,43,065/- on Escrow account. The AO while considering this rectification noted that as far as TDS is concerned, the income from Escrow account of ₹ 2,92,62,629/- is to be considered as 'income from other sources' as against claimed by assessee as 'LTCG'. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee moved rectification application vide petition dated 13.08.2014 and reminder to the letter on 25.04.2016. The AO carried out rectification vide order dated 20.06.2016. Now, the ld.counsel stated that as per the provisions of the Act, Section 154(7) of the Act categorically put a time limit of 4 years and after expiry of 4 years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed will become barred by limitation. The ld.counsel for the assessee referred to relevant provision of sub-section (7) to section 154 of the Act, which reads as under:- "154…. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub- section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed." 6.1 However, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made submissions that in case the petitioner wishes to file a rectification application in time and which is to clarify that he has made an application for further credit of TDS in time, as made in this case on 13.08.2014 as provided u/s.154(2)(b) of the Act, the application has to be disposed off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. AG(ITO), (1989) 177 ITR 538 Mad. In the present case before us there is no controversy about first order or second order but order under rectification is only the order passed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s.143(1) i.e., intimation or processing of return of income vide letter dated 05.03.2012. The rectification order by the AO u/s.154 of the Act was passed only on 20.06.2016. It means, that the rectification order u/s.154 of the Act in the present case can be passed upto 31.03.2016 and not beyond that. In the given facts and circumstances and above legal position discussed, we are of the view that the rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act is clearly barred by limitation and hence, on this sole ground, the order is quashed. 9. As regards to the other issues raised by various grounds noted above, we are refraining ourselves from adjudicating the same because on the issue of limitation, we have decided the appeal in favour of assessee and against Revenue. This appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. As regards to the petitioner alternative claim before us regarding credit of TDS, we are convinced that in term of the above CBDT Circular No.73(F.No.245/13/71-A&PAC) dated 07.01.1972 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
