9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, it is the interest of substantial justice that prevails. Furthermore, the assessee s plea that it has not received the defect notice has not been categorically rebutted. Moreover as fairly agreed by ld. DR for the Revenue that ld. CIT (A) has not answered the appeal on the issue of section 154 issue raised by the assessee before him. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue afresh keeping in mind the observation herein above. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. - ITA No.7254/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2,75.190/- but due to clerical error while filing ITR assessee incorrectly mentioned the earlier PAN of MHVS instead of new PAN allotted. Due to mismatch the AO disallowed refund of Rs.2,75,190/-. The appellant filed rectification application on 10.12.2018 and the same was rejected by the AO vide order dated 26.12.2018. Aggrieved with the said order assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). 3.1 In the rectification order observations of the AO are reproduced hereunder: As per details provided by you, the ITR for AY 2012-13 filed by using the PAN AAACM6666R, which belong to MIs MHVS Fin/ease Pvt. Ltd. was found to be defective by the IT department, and intimated in you on 23.04.2013. The reason for treating the ITR defective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under :- 1. A return of income (or the A. Y. 2012-13 was filed on 27.09.2012 by the company vide Ack No. 496843531270912 and as per the computation of income TDS credit of Rs, 2,02,556.00 was claimed in the return. 2. A refund of Rs. 275190.00 was claimed as TDS Refund in Income Tax Return after adjusting for the current year tax i.e A. Y. 2012-13. 3. As the refund was nor received for quite some time, assessee started enquiry for the reasons for withholding the refund amount. The assessee was informed that, due to pending reply the return could not be processed and refund has been blocked. 4. However, it is clarified that, the assessee did not receive any communication from the department for any kind of clarification in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. 10. From time to time similar circumstances have also been discussed in judicial proceedings. These all judicial proceedings have decided the matter in favour of assessee. With all humbleness, some of the prominent judgments are listed herein below. 1. Delhi High Court - Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs M/s Relcom, ITA 26/2015, Dated 16 January, 2015. 2. Gujarat High Court - Anish Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT at Ahmedabad R/Special Civil Application No. 3349 of 2018, Dated: 25.109.2018. 3. Allahabad High Court : Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. UOI, W.P No. 657 of 2013, Dated: 6th May, 2004 4. ITAT Delhi M/s Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs ITO, Rohtak ITA No. 2027/DEL/2016 [A.Y. 2012-13] dated 16 October, 2017 5. ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the issue of refund. (2) to pass such other order (s) as, it deems fit and proper. 5. After referring to the above, ld. CIT (A) referred to section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The order of ld. CIT (A) reads as under :- 7.2 In the present case, the rectification petition u/s 154 has been rejected by the AO. While rejecting the rectification petition u/s 154, the AO has stated that the ITR for AY 2012-13 filed by using the PAN AAACM6666R, which belong to M/s MHVS Finlease Pvt. Ltd. was found to be defective by the IT department, and intimated to the appellant on 23.04.2013. The ITR has been treated as defective for the reason that the name mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 7. Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that assessee never received the notice that it is a defective return. He claimed that as the TDS certificates were in earlier name PAN number, the assessee quoted the earlier PAN number in its return. He submitted that assessee s claim is genuine. When Revenue authorities are assessing the income which relates to earlier name, they should not deny the refund if the certificates are in old name and PAN number. 8. Per contra ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A) but argued that the ld. CIT (A) has not answered in his order about the issue of rejection of 154 application. 9. Upon careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
