Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see approached the Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner vide his letter dated 20.09.2006 and on 13.04.2011 with a request of adjustment of the advance tax against the seized amount. In response to these letters, the CIT(A) and CCIT has called report from the Assessing Officer in which the Assessing Officer himself has admitted that I.T.N.S.-150 was passed on 18.09.2006. But he has not produced any order passed on the application filed u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, it has become abundantly clear from the record that the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application dated 19.06.2006 filed u/s 154 of the Act by passing speaking order. Thus, the rejection of succeeding application is not proper on the ground that these rectification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Income tax, CC-IX, New Delhi on 18.09.2006 by rectifying the interest charged u/s 234A. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee s petition u/s 154 was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2006 rectifying the interest u/s 234A and granting resultant refund of ₹ 11,60,962/- in consequent to which the assessee moved petition for waiver of interest u/s 234B and 234C before Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, New Delhi on 21.09.2006, this clearly shows that the assessee was fully aware about the disposal of his petition on 18.09.2006 and he did not prefer to challenge the order dated 18.09.2006 passed u/s 154 b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in which the adjustment of the advanced tax for AY 2004-05 was not made and the Assessing Officer has charged interest u/s 234A of the Act. The assessee further issued the reminders to the Chief Commissioner vide his letter dated 20.09.2006 with a request that seized money be adjusted against the advance tax and no interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act be charged. The assessee finally moved an application before the Assessing Officer on 11.06.2013 with the request to dispose of his earlier application for rectification in which adjustment of advance tax for AY 2004-05 was sought and also for the deletion of interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. This application was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 30.07.2013 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitted that the assessee moved an application before the AO u/s 154 of the Act seeking rectification therein with respect to adjustment of advance tax for AY 2004- 05 against the seized amount and also for the deletion of interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The Assessing Officer simply issued I.T.N.S.- 150 totaling the computation of income but has not disposed of the application of the assessee by passing a speaking order. These facts were indirectly admitted by the Assessing Officer while submitting reply to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in response to the applications filed before the Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner for the deletion of the interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus, the rejection of succeeding application is not proper on the ground that these rectification applications were filed after four years from the end of the financial year in which the order was passed. In such circumstances, two options are left with us; one is either to sent the matter back to the AO for passing the order on application u/s 154 of the Act and the second one is to decide the dispute of adjustment of seized amount against the advanced tax for the AY 2004-05 and in that case the interest u/s 234B and 234C would not be charged. In this regard our attention was invited to the legal position by placing reliance upon the various judicial pronouncements. We have been carried through the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates