9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of such association. The association owns a Mall and is engaged in managing the Mall. Being an association of persons, according to the petitioners, the income generated from such activity would be proportionately divided among its members in their individual capacity. Petitioner No.1 applied for grant of PAN Card on 19.01.2015. Unfortunately, though on the request for issuance of PAN in the name of AOP the Department erroneously issued PAN in favour of partnership firm, the petitioner did not take any steps to get the PAN corrected for a long time. Under a belief that AOP is not required to file returns, for several years the petitioner did not file income-tax returns. The petitioner, however, received notice on 13.10.2011 from the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me may not be taxed twice i.e. firm, AOP or the respective co-parceners. Sir, in view of the foregoing submission, we would earnestly request you to direct your assessing officer to kindly process the Return of Income appropriately and oblige." 3. It was this application which the Commissioner rejected by the impugned order on 16.10.2014. After quoting sub-section (1) of section 119 of the Income Tax Act, observed as under: "Therefore, no action can be taken by the CIT, Valsad under the provision of this section. 3. It is observed that the PAN for the AOP has been obtained in the year 2011 pertaining to A.Y.2012-13 and therefore, the AOP was not in existence prior to this assessment year. Similarly, the returns filed by the firm cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Corporation v. DCIT. 5. Counsel submitted that in absence of necessary correction in PAN, the Department is insisting that the firm should file returns when no firm ever existed and the members of AOP are denied the benefit of TDS by the income tax authorities. 6. On the other hand, counsel Mr.Sudhir Mehta for the Department opposed the petition contending that for years together the petitioners did not take any steps for getting the PAN corrected. Valsad Commissioner had no authority to grant relief under section 119 of the Act. In any case, present case cannot be categorized as one of undue hardship which can be removed in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act. 7. The facts are not seriously disputed. The petitioners app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tend limitation provided by the Act for various stages. We are conscious that such routine exercise of powers would neither be expedient nor desirable, since the entire machinery of tax calculation, processing of assessment and further recoveries or refunds, would get thrown out of gear, if such powers are routinely exercised without considering its desirability and expedience to do so for avoiding genuine hardship. In the present case, however, considering special facts, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner ought to have exercised such powers. It is true that the Appellate Commissioner recorded that the petitioner did not remain present in the appellate proceedings. However that by itself would not take away the petitioner s case fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
