TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled as assessee was also contesting similar issues before ITAT for AY 2010-11. The assessee's plea for liberal approach was rejected by the CIT(A). In our considered opinion, the assessee's plea of a liberal approach on the facts narrated above deserves to succeed. Accordingly, we direct that the delay be condoned and appeal admitted by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has pleaded that since identical issue on merits was decided by ITAT, in earlier year this appeal on merits should also be decided in favour of the assessee also. In this regard, we note that after only applying a liberal approach, we have directed that the delay be condoned and appeal admitted by CIT(A), although, nowhere it has been pleaded that delay of 615 days was owin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at source amounting to ₹ 86,38,553/-: 1:1 The Assessing Officer has erred in not granting (short) credit for tax deducted at source to the extent of ₹ 86,38,553/-. 1:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it is entitled to a total tax credit of ₹ 2,66,51,427/- being the total tax deducted at source as against ₹ 1,80,12,874/- granted by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 1:3 The Appellant submits that it ought to be granted credit for tax deducted at source on the mobilization advance received by it and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in this regard is inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on the following case laws to contend that mobilisation advance is in the nature of loan for execution of the contract and it cannot be regarded as income received in advance. Delhi Tribunal in the case of Five Star Construction P. Ltd. v. of Income tax - ITA No. 1861/Del/2011 dated 2 November 2012; Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Hindustan instruction Company Limited v. State of Haryana and Others - 109 STC 660. Further, the assessee has relied on the following judicial precedents to contend that even though the assessee had not offered to tax the amount of income in his return of income, the credit for taxes deducted should be allowed to the assessee. Arvind Munjari Brands (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2012) 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the account of the assessee it is observed that the assessee has disclosed the amount of ₹ 57.86 as a contractual revenue which is forming part of the account of the assessee 10. Accordingly, the total TDS credit of ₹ 1,80,12,874 (1,08,44,985 + 5,70,814 + 65,97,075) is granted to the assessee based on the revenue recognised by the assessee during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 11. Further, the assessee has raised contention that the balance amount of TDS, not allowed in the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 should be allowed to the assessee in the subsequent assessment years in proportion to the revenue recognised by the assessee in subsequent assessment years. 12. Subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remain to be filed. 4.2. The appellant was given opportunity to substantiate why condonation of delay should not be denied. The appellant furnished submissions which were a repetition of the submissions made in the appeal memo. It was also stated that vide rectification order dated 14.10.2014, the AO withdrew the excess TDS granted, pursuant to order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act. On the advice of the counsel, in connection with the appeal of the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2010-11, wherein also identical issues are arisen, the appellant was advised to file appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act It was contended that delay should be condoned and liberal approach should be adopted in principle. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently vide rectification order dated 14.10.2014, AO further withdrew the TDS credit allowed. The Assessee pleaded before the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee did not file appeal before him against order dated 24.03.2014. But, after rectification order dated 14.10.2014 where AO withdrew further, the TDS credit, the assessee was advised to file appeal as similar matter was also in dispute for AY 2010-11 before ITAT. 9. The above reasonable cause for the delay 516 days was not accepted by Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine, as he was of the opinion that assessee has consciously chosen not to file appeal against the order dated 24.03.2014. 10. In our considered opinion, the inference of Ld.CIT(A) is apparently correct that assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
