TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the AO is not competent to grant any claim without the assessee claiming it in its return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act has specifically clarified that the embargo on the power of AO not to entertain claims which was not claimed by assessee while filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act, is not there for the appellate authorities. Therefore, we admit the claim of the assessee regarding the claim of carry forward of MAT credit for AY 2015-16 and restore this issue back to the file of the AO so that the AO can verify the claim of the assessee and if found to be correct i.e. claim for carry forward MAT credit then the AO should allow the claim of the assessee in accordance to law. Needless to say the assessee should be given opportunity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of rectification passed by the AO and since the issue is a debatable one, he refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 29 of the paper book and contended that the department had accepted while processing the return in respect of AY 2016-17 that the assessee had MAT credit of ₹ 54,21,075/- from AY 2013-14 and has allowed the MAT credit for AY 2016-17 to the tune of ₹ 11,14,185/-. It was also brought to our notice that before AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, the MAT credit was to the tune of ₹ 21,10,431/- which was not allowed to the assessee. The Ld. AR cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The Ld. AR also could not show us that this issue is debatable. According to us, language of law is simple and clear. In view of this, we reject the argument of the learned authorized representative that MAT credit is also an option to the assessee. We do not find that there is such option available to the assessee. It is automatic.. Therefore, we do not find any debatable issue involved in adjusting the MAT credit against the tax liability of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 10677-79 of 2010 and drew our attention to page 5 of the paper book wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court at para 9 has held as under: 9. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -C. Although Section 209(1)(d) does not make any specific provision either before or after the amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2006 to the effect that an assessee is entitled to set off the tax credit that would be available in terms of Section l15JAA(l) while computing the quantum of advance tax that is to be paid it must follow that an assessee would be entitled to do so otherwise it results in absurdity, viz, that an assessee pays advance tax on the footing that it is not entitled (when in fact it is so entitled as discussed above) to the credit and thereafter claims a refund of such advance tax paid as a consequence of the set off. 6. Citing the aforesaid decisions, the Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
