9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Authorised representative (for short "A.R") that the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the aforesaid appeal suffered from a mistake, which being glaring, patent, obvious and apparent from record therein rendered it amenable for rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. Facts to the extent relevant for the disposal of the present application are viz. (i). the assessee had claimed to have deposited Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) of Rs. 33,21,750/- u/s 115-O of the Act, vide a challan dated 17.05.2010 (as per "Form 26AS"); (ii). that while e-filing the return of income the assessee due to an inadvertent mistake had reported an amount of Rs. 32,44,500/- in the "Schedule DDT" of the ITR Form 6 (instead of Rs. 33,21,750/-); (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dismissed." It is submitted by the ld. A.R that the declining on the part of the Tribunal to address the grievance of the assessee, for the reason, that the same did not emanate from the impugned order is palpably incorrect and in fact inconsistent with the judgments of the Hon"ble Supreme Court. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that to constitute an "assessment order", it is not necessary that the computation of total income and tax payable should be done on the same sheet of paper. As such, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that computation/quantification of the "tax" and "interest" liability of an assessee, though carried out on a different sheet of paper and the A.O approves of it, either immediately or sometime later, would form part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of DDT did not arise from the order passed by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the CIT(A) had declined the assesse"s claim on the basis of a misconceived fact that the assessee was seeking credit of DDT against its tax liability on the total income. We have given a thoughtful consideration and find substantial force in the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R. As observed by us hereinabove, the Hon"ble Apex Court had Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) and CIT, Delhi Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxman.com 334 (SC), had observed, that that computation/quantification of the "tax" and "interest" liability of an assessee, though carried out on a different sheet of paper and the A.O approve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee is rectified. We herein restore the matter to the file of the A.O, who is herein directed to verify the claim of the assessee that though it had deposited DDT of Rs. 33,21,750/- u/s 115-O of the Act, vide a challan dated 17.05.2010 (as per "Form 26AS"), however, credit has been allowed only to the extent of Rs. 32,44,500/-. Resultantly, the impugned demand towards such short/deficit credit of DDT of Rs. 77,250/- u/s 115-O and interest u/s 115-P of Rs. 4,69,975/- had been raised by the revenue. In case the aforesaid claim of the assesses is found to be in order then the A.O shall give consequential effect to our aforesaid directions and vacate the demand raised i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
