TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the provisions of section 199 of the I.T. Act, read with Rule 37BA (3) of the Income Tax Rules,1962 - as per Rule 37BA(3) (i) the Credit for tax deducted at source(TDS) and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. The TDS pertains to advances should not be claimed by the assessee or may be claimed by the assessee in the assessment year in which said advances get converted into income. Considering the factual position explained above, we are of the view that order passed by the ld CIT U/s 263 does not contain any infirmity and accordingly, we confirm the order passed by the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 710/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also required to be treated as income U/s 199 of the I.T. Act,1961 in the year 2008-09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10. This has seemingly resulted in underassessment of income of Rs. 46,20,02,209/- (Rs.7,18,88,98,209 Rs.67,68,96,000). 3. Commissioner of Income Tax has exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act observing that sales shown by the assessee did not match with the TDS certificates of the assessee and he also noted that there was underassessment of income. Therefore, Commissioner of Income Tax has exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act observing the followings:- During the year an amount of Rs.7188898209 (Rs.7181369792+Rs.7528417) as per TDS certificates was the accrued income from sales during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the Supreme Court case [243 ITR 83, 88-89 (SC)], the CIT noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. The ITO accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. On these facts, the conclusion that the order of the ITO was erroneous is irresistible. Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified. ************** ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for being framed De-novo in total. 4) That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Ground Nos. 1,2 and 3 above, the Commissioner of Income-tax was wrong in observing that the Assessing Officer had allegedly not examined the issues relating to the appellant's income from business and interest properly and in the right perspective / detail to examine and to come to a correct conclusion in regard to the facts on those aspects. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted before us that it is not possible to show the income as per Form 26AS-TDS details. The amount of TDS received by the assessee includes the TDS on advances therefore naturally there will be mismatch. Therefore the TDS amount claimed by the assessee would not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven (hereinafter referred to as deductee) on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority. (2)(i) where under any provisions of the Act, the whole or any part of the income on which tax has been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, credit for the whole or any part of the tax deducted at source, as the case may be, shall be given to the other person and not to the deductee: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports the tax deduction in the name of the other person in the information relating to deduction of tax referred to in sub-rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
