TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d form has been filed by the assessee before the AO alongwith rectification application. Ignoring the TDS credit available to the assessee, and then raise the demand is abuse of the authority. The order of the AO passed u/s 143(1) of the Act is in gross negligence of his duty. In the case, neither in the order of the AO nor in the order of ld CIT(A) date of passing order u/s 143(1) has been provided nor such order has been placed on record by the Revenue. It was the onus of the AO to provide at least a copy of the order passed u/s 143(1) to the assessee before rejecting his application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has stated that said order was not received by him, therefore, it was not possible for him to file rectification within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee. we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the AO to carry out necessary rectification order and give credit of the TDS against the tax liability of assessee. The Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed. - Shri Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Shiv Kumar, SR.DR ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short Ld.CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds of appeal:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice and filed rectification request on 12.10.2015 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer (in short AO ) on 08.08.2016 stating that same has not been a mistake apparent from the record and confirmed the demand of the assessee. The assessee again filed rectification request on 24.11.2017 u/s 154 of the Act and again on 13.04.2018 which was disposed off on 16.07.2018. On the ground that order u/s 143(1) cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act as the same was time barred and the mistake was not apparent from the record. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) also upheld the findings of the AO by observing as under:- 5. Decision: I have considered the order passed by the LAJO and submissions made by the appellant. In this case, the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is barred by the limitation of 4 years. The order of the Assessing Officer is upheld and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 3. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material available on record. We find that the assessee in the return of income mistakenly reported the amount of TDS as advance tax. But in the total, no excess claim of the tax has been made by the assessee. At the first instance, we do not understand why the AO raised a demand in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act without giving credit of the amount of the TDS which was already appearing in form no. 26AS. A copy of said form has been filed by the assessee before the AO alongwith rectificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pari-materia to section 154(7) of the Act which reads as no amendment under the section shall be made after expiry of four year from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed . Thus, respectfully, following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra), the period of four years for rectification of the order as stipulated in section 154(7) of the Act should be reckoned from the date from which the said order came to the knowledge of the assessee. In that case the application of the assessee would be within the limitation period. Further, we find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 337/Ahd/2010 in Liberty Pesticides Fertilizer Ltd Vs ACIT held that the Revenue cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
