9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 22.05.2021 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the ADIT(CPC), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that the ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru while processing the return u/s. 143(1) dated 19/03/2021 did not allow relief u/s.90/90A amounting to Rs.4,40,901/- for AY 2019-20 which was claimed by the assessee in his return of income. The assessee had filed rectification request on 07.04.2021 against the intimation order. The ADIT- CPC passed the rectification order on 22.05.2021 by not giving relief u/s.90/90A. Against this, the appellant filed an appeal on 14.08.2021. During the course of appellate proceedings hearing notices u/s.250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief claimed u/s 90/90A of Foreign Tax Credit ("FTC") of Rs.4,40,901/- in the intimation processed under Section 143(1) and rectification order u/s 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 3. The appellant denies its liability to tax as upheld by the Id. CIT(A) as determined and computed by the learned ADIT-CPC and the manner in which it has been so determined or computed. 4. The appellant craves leave and sanction of the Hon'ble ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be produced or filed before lower authorities either because proper and sufficient opportunity was not provided or because it was not solicited or its need w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the issue which is the view set out above. I am also of the view that the issue in the proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, even if it involves long drawn process of reasoning, the answer to the question can be only one and in such circumstances, proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, can be resorted to. Even otherwise the ground on which the revenue authorities rejected the Assessee's application u/s.154 of the Act was not on the ground that the issue was debatable but on merits. I therefore do not agree with the submission of the learned DR in this regard." 9. Ld. CIT(A) in the case in hand however, has not followed the aforesaid judgment observing in para no. 7.1 :- "7.1 With due respect to the aforesaid decision, it is not known as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
