TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,60,011/- and claimed TDS credit for ₹ 94,00,697/- only. Subsequently on 27.7.2009 the assessee filed an application u/s 154 requesting for additional TDS credit of ₹ 20,04,748/- and claimed refund of the above amount with interest. The details of TDS credit claimed in the 154 application are as under :- S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. 427013/- 2. Bhushan Steel Strips Ltd. 93640/- 3. Indo Rama Petrochemicals 482460/- 4. Indo Rama Petrochemicals 92565/- 5. MPPGCL 31641/- 6. MPPGCL 31641/- 7. MPPGCL 31066/- 8. Keshav Power (P) Ltd. 814722/- Total 20,04,748/- 4. The AO vide his or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed. He further pointed out that the issue raised in the ground of the present appeals is fully covered by the following decisions :- 1. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation, (2013) 29 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) 2. Gloric Investments Ltd. vs. DDIT (International Taxation), (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 667 3. CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 489 (Karnataka) 9. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee in view of the provisions laid down u/s 155(14) of the Act, which is being reproduced hereunder :- ( 14) Where in the assessment for any previous year or in any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section(1) of section 143 for any previous year, credit for tax deducted in accordance with the provisions of section 199 has not been given on the ground that the certificate furnished under section 203 was not filed with the return and subsequently such certificate is produced before the Assessing Officer within two years from the end of the assessment year in which such income is assessable, the Assessing Officer shall a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is empowered to consider the revised return and direct the AO to make just assessment on the basis of information furnished therein. Invoking that power the Ld. CIT(A) in our view has rightly directed the AO to consider the assessee s claim for TDS credit of ₹ 8587962/- as per law based on the revised return filed by the assessee on 18.9.2009 and as per the provisions of section 155(14) of the I.T. Act. 12. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR supports the stand of the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of Gloric Investment Ltd. vs. DDIT (supra) assessee had filed original return for assessment year 2002-03 on 26.12.2002 declaring nil income claiming benefit of DTAA and also claiming refund of TDS amounting to ₹ 4 lacs odd-refund granted by the Department vide intimation u/s 143(1). Later on assessee discovered that there was yet another TDS certificate relating to same assessment year in the sum of ₹ 2 lac odd. The assessee claimed refund in respect of the said amount by way of rectification application u/s 154 on 31.3.2004 enclosing original TDS certificate. Yet another application for refund was made u/s 155(14) on 17.1.2005. In the meanwhile notice u/s 148 was issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - towards tax deducted at source which included the amount of ₹ 19,44,672/- in respect of which no claim had been made in the original return of income. The Commissioner exercising his power u/s 263 withdrew the credit given to the amount of ₹ 19,44,672/-. The Tribunal held that tax deducted at source partakes of the character of advance tax u/s 237, the assessee was entitled to refund in respect of such tax deducted at source. The AO was satisfied that the credit for such tax was not given earlier. The certificate was found to be correct. The income comprised in such certificate had already suffered taxation. Thus there was no reason to hold that the assessee was not entitled to credit for such tax. It was hled that there was no prejudice to the revenue if the credit of such tax deducted was given. Credit was given only in respect of sums which was already deducted from the income of the assessee and which had been paid to the credit of the Government. The Tribunal accordingly held that there was neither any error in the order of section 154 nor any prejudice caused to the Government by giving credit. Thus it was held that there was no error in the order u/s 154 sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
