9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Senior DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the assessee against respective orders of ld. CIT (A). Since the issues are common and connected, these are being consolidated and disposed off together. 2. The grounds of appeal and order of Revenue authorities are similar except for change in figures. 3. For the sake of reference, we are referring to ITA No.6418/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2006-07. 4. The grounds of appeal read as under :- 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), - Ghaziabad, dated 28.09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be deducted which had not been done. The AO worked out short charge of Rs.6,63,102/- at the rate of 22.44% and interest under section 201 (1A) of Rs. 2,58,610/-was also charged at the rate of 18%. Thus total demand of Rs.9,21,272/- was created against the assessee company. After it, the chronological events of the case areas under: 1) Against this order of the A.O. dated 27.06.2008, the assessee filed application under section 154 before the A.O. on 28.05.2009. 2) The assessee had also filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad. 3) The CIT(A), Ghaziabad vide order dated 14.09.2012 in A.No.1338/1339/1340/2011-12/GZB dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non condonation of delay in filing of appeal. However, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the records. We hope that our request shall be acceded to and you would definitely extend the favor within the provisions of the Act and according to law. The assessee has also submitted that the AO had calculated the tax on Rs. 29,55,0001- @ 22.44% as against applicable rate of 10.20% on Rs.29,31,525/-. 2. The contention of the assessee to the extent that the AO had charged rates of TDS @ 22.44% on Rs.29,55,000/- as against applicable rate of 10.20% on Rs.29,31,525/- has been verified from the records which appears to be correct. As regards the assessee's contention that Form 15H in respect of the depositors as shown in the list submitted in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax in as much as the interest paid to oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29,31,525/-, an obvious error and as such erred in not rectifying/ deleting the same. 5.2 It observed that the AO in his order has already given the benefit charging TDS @ 10.20% on Rs.29,31,525/- instead of previous computation involving charging of TDS @ 22.44% of Rs.29,55,000/-. Beyond that there is no issue involved which is prima facie rectifiable nature u/s 154. Thus the appeal of appellant is dismissed. 7. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several notices. Upon careful consideration, we find that ld. CIT (A) has passed a correct and well reasoned order. The view of ld.CIT (A) that further the issues raised by assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
