9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed but without considering fact (factual position) of the matter that both the copies of the intimation u/s.143(1)(a) is found to be in the case records. There was a demand of Block period 01.04.1986 to 18.12.1996. So assessee could not referred for the refund of various A.Y. but assessee referred vide letter LPFL/IT-SETL/2004-05 dtd 12.08.04 on account of demand from I T Department for such period 01.04.1986 to 18.12.1996 on the basis of order of settlement commission to adjust all refund of various assessment year which are also slightly delay of about 3 months and 12 days than expired on 31.03.04 but factual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Ld.CIT(A) was not convinced and decided the issue against the assessee as follows:- "5. I have considered the submissions of the ld. A.R. and the facts of the case. It is seen that from the report of the AO that intimation u/s.143(1)(a) had not been served on the assessee. However, as per sub-section (7) of sec. 154, the rectification can be made only before the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, the impugned order was passed on 30.6.1999. Hence the period of limitation expired on 31.3.2004. the application has been made on 20.3.2006. This is clearly out of time. The section does not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... juncture, it is worth to mention that the provisions of section 154(7), as reproduced supra, prescribes that an amendment u/s.154 is required to be made within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. Therefore, the Revenue's stand was that the IT return for A.Y. 1998-99 was processed u/s.143(1) on 30/06/1999. The Financial Year was 1999-2000 of the order sought to be amended for which the four years from the end of the Financial Year had expired in 2004. Since the assessee had admittedly moved the rectification application in the year 2006, therefore according to the Revenue Department that application itself was barred by limitation, moreover the AO is also not empowered to pass an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) If any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee;" 5.2. Since the law prescribes that an intimation has to be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable and that intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand u/s.156 of IT Act, therefore the issuance of such an intimation is absolutely necessary. The undisputed factual position is that the impugned intimation remained with the Revenue Department's record. Naturally, the assessee was not aware about the adjustments and the fate of its return; stated to be filed in the due c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. Even the ld.CIT(A) was of the same view, although he has also acknowledged that both the copies of the intimation was found available in the case records for the year under consideration. He was also aware that the said intimation u/s.143(1) remained to be served upon the assessee being not issued by the AO. So, the argument before us is that an Authority must not be allowed to take advantage of his own default or failure. Naturally, in our humble understanding, an Authority has to act in accordance with law. Since the law is that an intimation was required to be sent to the assessee, hence the AO was duty bound to issue the same. Since the AO had failed to discharge its statutory duty, therefore we are of the view that the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the time specified under sub-section (7) of section 154, it may be disposed of by that authority even after the expiry of the statutory time-limit, on merits and in accordance with law." 5.5. Therefore, in the light of this Circular a rectification application can be disposed of by the AO even after the expiry of the statutory time limit on merits and in accordance with law. Our attention has also been drawn on an another Circular No.4 of 2012 dated 20/06/2012, wherein the CBDT being conscious about the limitation prescribed u/s.154(7) has authorized that in the cases of genuine hardship the AO is directed to make appropriate corrections in the figures of disputed arrear demands, naturally after due verification and reconciliation as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
