9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the enhancement of income of Rs.29,12,448/- made by the AO by passing an order under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee had failed to reconcile the claim of TDS and income as per TDS certificates." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (for short the AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.3.2006 and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.41,820 against the loss shown at Rs.2,28,238. Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 154 of the Act and reply was filed on 15.5.2007 by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to reconcile the claim of TDS and inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt out in the notice issued, it may be confronted for their rebuttal. The AO gave final notice after two and half years on 10th Feb, 2010 and held accountable the appellant for non compliance while passing rectification order on 26-2- 2010. The assertion of the AO that the appellant did not file the reconciliation of income shown and income discernable from TDS certificate does not prima facie qualify the test of rectifiable mistake .The AO passed the order after a period of two and half years without taking necessary clarification from the appellant. The mistakes which can be rectified are an error of law or fact, a clerical or arithmetic mistake, error in determining written down value, overlooking the obligatory provisions of the Legisl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. It was also explained by the appellant that out of such income of Rs. 99,93,995/- tax was deducted only on an income of Rs. 77,27,623/- and no tax was deducted at source on the remaining amount already disclosed as income by the appellant. Thus, appellant had disclosed more amounts as income than income as per relevant TDS certificates. The appellant requested the assessing officer in reply to the notices issued u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that in case there is some other mistake which might have not clearly spelt out in the notice issued, to confront the same to the appellant for his rebuttal but the assessing officer failed to do so and instead rectified the order without even noticing as to which of the income covered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments of both the parties in the light of material placed on record before us. A bare reading of the order dated 26.2.2010 of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 of the Act reveals that the Assessing Officer considered the reply of the assessee dated 15.5.2007 to the notice under section 154 of the Act and made the enhancement of assessed income after lapse of two and half years ignoring the request of the assessee that if there is some other mistake which might not have been clearly spelt out, the assessee may be given an opportunity to confront the same for rebuttal. But the Assessing Officer passed the enhancement order without affording an opportunity to be heard to the assessee after substantial lapse of time i.e. two and half years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
