9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reject the appeal treating the application file by the Assessee for allowing credit of TDS at Rs. 19,687/- is barred by limitation. 2. That the rejection of request to allow credit of TDS as appearing in 26AS at Rs. 19,687/- as against the claim as advance tax is arbitrary and bad in law. 3. That the interest charged at Rs. 3,033/- for non-payment of Tax without considering the TDS at Rs. 19,687/- is arbitrary and bad in law." 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a retired employee of State Bank of India. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned income from pension amounting to Rs. 3,32,842/- and interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 1,55,303/-. The assessee filed his return of income manually bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for A.Y. 2011-12. The appellant had claimed TDS of Rs. 19,687/- as Advance Tax. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) and demand of Rs. 22,720/- was raised. The contention of the appellant is that it did not receive intimation u/s. 143(1), but after uploading of the demand on income tax portal, it received a demand notice u/s. 245 from CPC, Bangalore on 19/09/2015. Hence, the contention of the appellant is that intimation period of 4 years will start from 19.09.2015 and hence its application u/s. 154 is not barred by limitation. The Assessing Officer has rejected the application u/s. 154 of the appellant, filed on 13/04/2018, barred by limitation. 5.1 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and submissions filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The order of the AO passed u/s 143(1) of the Act is in gross negligence of his duty. Further, when the assessee filed a rectification application stated that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act was not received by him and only this fact of not allowing the credit of TDS was came to his knowledge on demand raised by the CPC, Bangalore. Firstly, we note that in the case, neither in the order of the AO nor in the order of ld CIT(A) date of passing order u/s 143(1) has been provided nor such order has been placed on record by the Revenue. It was the onus of the AO to provide at least a copy of the order passed u/s 143(1) to the assessee before rejecting his application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has stated that said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee specifying the sum so payable which was not the fault of assessee, hence application entertained". In the instant case also, there is no evidence on record that intimation u/s 143(1) was sent to the assessee, therefore, respectfully following the decision of Tribunal (supra), the Assessing officer is not justified in rejecting the rectification application of the assessee invoking section 154(7) of the Act. It is not in dispute that tax deducted by the employer on the pension of the assessee has already gone to the exchequer of the Government of India and now denying the credit of the same to the assessee is gross injustice to the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
