9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, once on accrual basis and then again on receipt. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the technicalities ought not to obscure justice. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. AO must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee as to his rights [Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated 11/04/1955]. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify that the income as reflected in form 26AS for the AY 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 has been offered to tax as income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, respectively. In case the on verification, the aforesaid is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant had failed to file a revised return for AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting the TDS credit of INR.35,35,638/- on the basis that the Appellant has failed to file a revised return for AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 and AY 2012- 13 despite knowing the fact that the time limit for revising the return of income had elapsed and hence the Appellant was prevented from filing a revised return for the aforementioned years. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a company incorporated under the laws of Cyprus and carrying out activity of making investment securit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vide, order dated 08/02/2023. The Appeal preferred before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid rejection order was also dismissed by the CIT(A), vide order dated 19/02/2024. Therefore, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have head both the sides, perused the material on record and examined the position in law in view of the submissions advanced. 6. On perusal orders passed by the authorities below and on perusal of the material on record, we find that the Appellant had itself offered to tax income of INR.15,65,78,250/- which exceeded the income of INR.12,12,21,871/- by INR.3,53,56,379/-. The explanation offered by the Appellant is that the Appellant had offered interest income to tax for the Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of income. Since the Appellant had not filed revised return, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on processing return of income does not suffer from any infirmity. Further, the credit of TDS as reflected in Form 26AS has already been granted. Since no further TDS credit is available as per records, Appellant's alternative claim for credit of TDS is without merit. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In the present case the contention of the Appellant is that interest income to the extent of INR.3,53,56,379/- has been offered to tax on receipt basis by the Appellant though the same interest income had already been offered to tax earlier on accrual basis. The contention of the Revenue is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
