TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was also dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not take up necessary follow-up action. In our view, the assessee has already approached the CPC thrice and also approached Ld. CIT(Appeals) for redressal of its grievance and there is no denial that the assessee has paid and deposited DDT within the due date. It is a fit case where the assessee should be granted necessary credit of DDT paid. Accordingly, the revenue is directed to grant credit of DDT to the assessee by giving necessary directions to the jurisdictional assessing Officer to correct the data uploaded to the OLTAS database and grant credit of DDT to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 436/Ahd/2020 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2022 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad in Appeal no. CIT(A)-8/10177/2016-17 vide order dated 20/09/2018 passed for the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice-that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is required to be adopted on principle as ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Further refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Apex Court further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x credits claimed and allowed. On examination, it is found that there is mismatch in DDT major head / minor head is wrongly mentioned, the assessee has to get the same corrected by the bank / jurisdictional assessing officer for the corrected data uploaded to OLTAS database. After updation, you may file online rectification. 5. The assessee filed appeal against the above rectification application dated 02-02-2017. However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee s appeal with the following observations: 4. I have carefully gone through the impugned Rectification Order u/s. 154 and the submission made by the appellant Ground no,1 2 of the appellant pertains to grievance of the appellant in not granting the credit of DDT [(Dividend Distribution tax) amounting to Rs.3,88,761/-. The facts of the case are that appellant while admitted that he paid the DDT by wrong challan and hence the DDT was not mapped while processing the return by CPC, Bangalore. Appellant filed a rectification application to CPC. The CPC, Bangalore vide Rectification Order dated 02/02/2017 rejected the rectification application for the following reasons: As seen from the e-filed return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of a technical default committed at the time of filing of challan, wherein a wrong column was tick marked by the assessee inadvertently. The assessee has filed three rectification applications with CPC, on which there has been no relief despite continuous follow-ups. In fact vide order dated 02-02-2017, the CPC has directed the assessee to get the mistake corrected by the bank/jurisdictional Officer for the corrected date uploaded to OLTAS database so as to enable him to get the credit of DDT, thereby shifting then entire onus of getting the DDT credit upon the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has also dismissed the assessee s appeal on the ground that since the assessee has not approached the bank/jurisdictional assessing Officer for correction of data uploaded by them as advised by CPC, the appeal is dismissed. It has been never disputed that the assessee has deposited DDT within time. The Delhi High Court in the case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Ld. CIT(Appeals) [2013] 31 taxmann.com 31 (Delhi) issued seven mandamus in response to a Public Interest Litigation regarding difficulties faced by assessees after computerisation and central processing of income tax returns. One ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... write a letter to the deductor to persuade him to correct the uploaded entries or to upload the details cannot be accepted. Power and authority of the Assessing Officer cannot match and are not a substitute to the beseeching or imploring of an assessee to the deductor. Section 234E will also require similar verification by the Assessing Officer. In such cases, if required, order under section 154 may also be passed . [Para 50] 7.1 In our view, the above ruling highlights the difficulties faced by the assessee s in genuine circumstances and the role that the Department may undertake in assisting the assessee s in case of genuine difficulties being faced by them. In our view, in the instant case, the assessee has deducted and deposited DDT within time, but due to an inadvertent mistake in filing the challan, the assessee has been denied credit of DDT. The assessee has filed several applications under section 154 of the Act with the CPC, but the same have been rejected citing technical reasons. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not take up necessary follow-up action. In our view, the assessee has already approached the CPC thrice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
