| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3067 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where declining on the part of the Tribunal to address the grievance of the assessee as regards the raising of the demand under sections 115-O (tax) and 115-P (interest) by observing that the issue as regards quantification of DDT did not arise from the order passed by CIT(A), was not found to be in conformity with the settled position of law laid down by Apex Court, therefore, order passed by Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of assessee was rectified and Miscellaneous application was allowed.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake under section 254 - Credit of DDT against its tax liability on the total income -
Present miscellaneous application filed by assessee under section 254 arose from the order passed by Tribunal on the ground that there was a mistake apparent in order. Assessee had claimed to have deposited DDT under section 115-O. While e-filing the return of income assessee due to an inadvertent mistake had reported less amount instead in 'Schedule DDT' of the ITR Form 6. Demand was raised in the hands of assessee while processing of its return under section 143(1) towards short deposit of DDT and interest under section 115P. AO while framing the assessment order passed under section 143(3) worked out the outstanding liability towards DDT under section 115-O and interest section 115P. Tribunal dismissed the appeal of assessee for the reason, that issue as regards quantification of DDT did not arise from the order passed by CIT(A) who declined assessee's claim on the basis of a misconceived fact that assessee was seeking credit of DDT against its tax liability on the total income. Held: Apex Court in the case of Genpact India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ((2019) 111 taxmann.com 402 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7757 (SC)) held that an assessee remains well within his right to assail by way of an appeal the quantification of tax and interest liability raised by the revenue against it under sections 115-O and 115P. Declining on the part of the Tribunal to address the grievance of the assessee as regards the raising of demand under sections 115-O (tax) and 115-P (interest) by observing that the issue as regards quantification of DDT did not arise from the order passed by CIT(A), was not found to be in conformity with the settled position of law laid down by Apex Court. Accordingly, order passed by Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of assessee was rectified. Therefore, Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was allowed.
Relied:CIT, Delhi v. M/s. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd., M/s. M.R.G. Plastic Technologies & Ors. (2015) 60 taxman.com 334 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3246 (SC) Asstt. CIT, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2300 (SC) Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1526 (SC) Maquet Medical India Private Limited v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 6523/Mum/2017, dt. 5-3-2019]Followed:Genpact India Private Limited v. Dy. CIT & Anr. (2019) 111 taxmann.com 402 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7757 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|