9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year 2018-19 a similar adjustment i.e. taxing a service receipt 40% was levied by CPC, Bangalore in the case of assessee s group company i.e. Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. UK, the said assessee has preferred an application for rectification wherein the rectification applications have been allowed by the CPC on 27/02/2020 and 30/01/2020. It is not in dispute that as per India US Tax Treaty the impugned income is not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of Article 12 of India USA Tax Treaty. As in the case of Madhabi Nag [ 2016 (1) TMI 684 - ITAT KOLKATA] Tribunal held that the revenue authorities ought not to have rejected the application u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Assessee : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Shruti Khimta, A.R. For the Department : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, [CIT] D. R.; ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 42, New Delhi, dated 29.11.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 42 [ CIT (A) ] has erred in disregarding the principles of natural justice and holding that relief could be claimed only by filing revised return for which statutory timeline has already expired. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a tax resident of USA. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 23,60,54,860/- and claiming refund of Rs. 53,56,620/-. The return was processed, intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, the Central Process Centre, Bangalore, raised tax demand of Rs. 80,58,000/- for the reason that service income of Rs. 2,84,40,475/- received from Heidrick and Struggles India Pvt. Ltd. considered as taxable 40% and also levied consequential surcharge, education cess and interest u/s 243 B and Section 234C of the Act vide order dated 14/06/2019. 4. As against the order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. DR submitted that the return filed by the assessee has been processed by the CPC, the demand has been raised considering the details furnished by the assessee himself in its return Form. Therefore, the assessee cannot find fault with processing the order or with the rectification order of the CPC. The assessee as per Section 139(5) of the Act can revise the return if at all any mistakes in the return of income. But the assessee has failed to do so within the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. The relief sought by the assessee is not found in the return of the income filed by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. A.O and CIT(A) were right in holding against the assessee. 9. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at some re fund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on whom it is imposed bu law, officers should (a) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. 11. Further, in the case of Madhabi Nag Vs ACIT (ITA No. 512/K0I/2015) (Kolka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
