TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is even not required to assist the tax authorities to justify the claim once it is declared and claimed in the return of income. Further, the letter dated 13/03/2013 is well within the period of limitation as prescribed U/s 154(7) of the Act then non-performance of duties by the A.O. to take a decision on the said letter cannot be taken to prejudicial to the assessee when the second letter is filed by the assessee on 03/08/2017 for reminding the A.O. for the said claim. The whole conduct on the part of the authorities below for non-granting of due credit of TDS as well as refund is nothing but amounts to undue enrichment of the department by failure to perform its duties. When it was the duty on the taxing authority to grant u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t source and therefore, section 154(7) is not applicable. 3. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not directing to allow the credit of tax deducted at source by Centurion bank of Punjab of ₹ 39,130/- even when the assessee vide letter dt. 13/03/2013 has requested the AO to grant him the refund of ₹ 24,270/- due as per the return. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 5. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 2. The assessee is a salaried employee and received salary from HDFC Bank and Centurion Bank of Punjab during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income on 30/07/2009 declaring total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act but these applications were filed for grant of refund as claimed in the return of income. He further submitted that even otherwise the first letter dated 13/03/2013 filed on 14/04/2013 as per acknowledgment, is within the period of limitation as prescribed U/s 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise when the assessee claimed the refund vide letter dated 13/03/2013. The ld. AR has further contended that it was the duty of the tax authority to assess the correct income to tax and grant due refund to the assessee which is not in dispute as the TDS amount is duly reflected in 26AS for which the assessee has claimed a credit of ₹ 73,505/- out of which the department has not granted the TDS credit of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order passed by the A.O. on the application of the assessee filed on 03/08/2017 which is undisputedly barred by limitation as prescribed U/s 154(7) of the Act. The ld. DR has further submitted that letter dated 13/03/2013 as claimed by the assessee is neither mentioned in the order of the A.O. nor in the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), therefore, for the purpose of limitation, the said letter cannot be considered. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. On careful perusal of the impugned orders of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) as well as the relevant documents regarding the filing of return of income and TDS credit shown in the Form 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -performance of duties by the A.O. to take a decision on the said letter cannot be taken to prejudicial to the assessee when the second letter is filed by the assessee on 03/08/2017 for reminding the A.O. for the said claim. The whole conduct on the part of the authorities below for non-granting of due credit of TDS as well as refund is nothing but amounts to undue enrichment of the department by failure to perform its duties. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagaraj Others Vs State of Karnataka Another (supra) has observed in para 18 as under: 18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
