9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see enhanced the tax liability by determining the tax at normal rate as against u/s 115BAA. Since the assessee has not withdrawn its option and not violated any of the provisions, therefore, the CPC in our opinion, was not justified in raising the demand by taxing the assessee at normal rate as against the provisions of section 115BAA. Since all the details were available before the CIT(A) / NFAC, therefore, CIT(A) / NFAC, in our opinion, should not have restored the matter to the file of the AO without deciding the issue himself especially when the AO did not respond to four reminders issued by him for submission of the remand report. We, therefore, hold that the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act was invalid in law to the extent of taxing the assessee at normal rate as against the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. Short grant of TDS - order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the TDS claim - HELD THAT:- Since it requires verification at the level of the Assessing Officer, therefore, we do not find any infirmit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have computed the tax under the normal rate without computing the tax as per section 115BAA. 6. On the basis of arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, despite four reminders, the Assessing Officer did not submit any remand report. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, therefore, restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the claim and pass necessary order by recording as under: 5. Upon perusal of the written submission, it is noticed that the appellant challenged the order u/s 154 where their claim of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA of the IT Act has been rejected by CPC. The appellant submitted that the option exercised by them cannot be rejected arbitrarily. It is also claimed by the appellant that it is not a mistake apparent from record to rectify the intimation. In Ground No.6, the appellant contended that TDS credit was not allowed fully by CPC while processing their return of income and also in the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act. 6. This submission was forwarded to the AO and a remand report was called for on the claim of the appellant vide letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee should have been allowed by him. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of Form No.10-IC filed on 31.01.2021 for the assessment year 2020-21 which is placed at pages 66 to 67 of the paper book. Referring to the copy of the intimation for assessment year 2021-22 he submitted that the CPC has accepted the return filed by the assessee and has accepted the option of the assessee to tax the income at lower rate as per section 115BAA of the Act. However, in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act the CPC without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to the assessee has computed the tax liability at normal rate and raised a huge demand of Rs. 16.09 crore. He submitted that for assessment year 2020-21 the CPC has accepted the lower rate of tax as per provisions of section 115BAA. Hence, when the assessee filed the application u/s 154 for giving the benefit of short credit of TDS, the CPC instead of giving credit for short deduction of TDS, has determined the tax liability by computing the tax at normal rate. He submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, other than those mentioned under section 115BA and section 115BAB, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020, shall, at the option of such person, be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent, if the conditions contained in sub-section (2) are satisfied: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent assessment years and other provisions of the Act shall apply, as if the option had not been exercised for the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent assessment years. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the total income of the company shall be computed, (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2AA) or sub-section (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2020 and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years: (emphasis supplied by us) Provided that in case of a person, where the option exercised by it under section 115BAB has been rendered invalid due to violation of conditions contained in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of said section, such person may exercise option under this section: Provided further that once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year. 13. There is also no dispute to the fact that for assessment year 2020-21 the option exercised by the assessee u/s 115BAA was accepted by the CPC. Therefore, for the impugned assessment year as per the said provisions, once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year. Since the assessee has not withdrawn its option and not violated any of the provisions, therefore, the CPC in our opinion, was not justified in raising the demand by taxing the assessee at normal rate as against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
