TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC that as the applications filed by the assessee after expiry of more than seven years from the end of the financial year in which the order was sought to be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act were in itself barred by limitation, therefore, the same were not maintainable. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : S/shri Hardik Chordia Pratik Sadrani, CAs For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.09.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (for short DCIT), Centralized Processing Cell (CPC), TDS, Ghaziabad u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) dated 06.09.2014. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. Succinctly stated, the DCIT, TDS-CPC, Ghaziabad had passed an intimation u/s. 200A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the assessee instead of filing appeals against the original orders u/s. 200A of the Act, filed correction statements with the DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad on 02.02.2022. The DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad not finding any mistake apparent from record passed rectification orders u/s. 154 of the Act dated 02.02.2022 without carrying out any changes in the original orders passed u/s. 200A of the Act dated 06.09.2014. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the DCIT, TDS-CPC, Ghaziabad u/s. 154 of the Act dated 02.02.2022 carried the matters in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC Delhi vide his orders dated 07.09.2022 dismissed the appeals of the assessee for two-fold reasons, viz. (i) that as per the provisions of Section 154 of the Act, rectification of a mistake in an order could be made upto four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified was passed, therefore, as the rectification applications were filed by the assessee after expiry of period of more than seven years from the end of the financial year in which the orders sought to be rectified were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S) Ghaziabad against the levy of late filing fee u/s 234E for late filing of quarterly TDS statement 240 for A.Y. 2013-14 (F.Y. 2012-13 01), which was filed and for which order was passed on 06.09.2014. 5.1.5 However, it is noted that the appellant has enclosed an order u/s. 154 dated 02.02.2022 (and not order u/s 200A) along with the Form 35 and given this as the date of order appealed against in Form 35. This order u/s 154 has been passed on a Correction statement to the TDS statement, filed by the appellant on 02.02.2022. The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant do not emanate from enclosed with the Form 35, which make the entire appeal as defective. 5.1.6 Now the extract of Section 154 of the Act is reproduced below for appreciating the issue:- (1) With a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record an Income Tax Authority referred under section 116 may 1. Amend any order passed by it 2. Amend intimation or demand initiation under section 143(1) 3. Amend intimation under section 200A(1) . 154(7) save as otherwise no amendment under the section shall be made after expiry of four years The Income Tax Authorities referred under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction, allowance or relief has to be allowed on the basis of the information available in such return or accounts or documents accompanying it. Similarly, under clause (iii) of the proviso, to disallow any deduction, allowance or relief claimed, such deduction, allowance or relief must be such as is, on the basis of the information available in the return, accounts or documents, prima facie inadmissible. The Income-tax Officer therefore, has no power to go beyond or behind the return, accounts or documents, either in allowing or in disallowing any such deduction, allowance or relief. 18. Under clause (iii) to the proviso, unless the return or the accompanying documents or accounts shows that the deduction claimed is prima facie inadmissible, such deduction cannot be disallowed at the intimation stage. If the Income-tax Officer is not satisfied with the claim for deduction, or if he requires any further information or any further evidence in that connection, he is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under section 143(2) of giving a notice to the assessee. It is not open to him to disallow such a claim under section 143(1)(a). 22. We are not here concerned with a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no ground has been raised in respect to rectification of mistake which is alleged to be apparent from record. Therefore, it is clear cut case, where the appellant has failed to file the appeal in response to the intimation order passed u/s. 200A of the Act. Hence, the appellant has filed the rectification application and against the rectification order appeal has been filed. However, in the grounds of appeals, the appellant has nowhere stated that there is mistake apparent from record. In such a scenario, TDS-CPC has correctly passed the order u/s. 154 without distinct with original order. 5.1.8 If the appellant was aggrieved by late fee u/s. 234E of Rs. 31,000/- for delay in filing quarterly E-TDS return, it should have challenged the said order by filing appeal against the same. Apparently, the appellant has chosen not to do so. It has later on, filed a rectification petition u/s 154 and claimed that the said late fee u/s. 234F was a mistake apparent from the record. In rectification, the most important aspect which needs to be looked into is, whether the claim of the appellant is within the scope of section 154 or not. Scope of rectification is limited to correcting error o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act, as no amendment under the said section shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified was passed, therefore, the applications filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the orders passed by the DCIT, CPC-TDS u/s. 200A of the Act on 06.09.2014 by filing rectification letters dated 02.02.2022 for the aforementioned respective years were in itself not maintainable. For the sake of clarity, sub-section (7) of Section 154 of the Act is culled out as under: (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub- section (4) of section 186, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. (emphasis supplied by us) We, considering the aforesaid mandate of law, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC that as the applications filed by the assessee after expiry of more than seven years from the end of the financial year in which the order was sought to be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act were in itself barred by limitation, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
