Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP v. Asstt. DIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 1156 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, J.M. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP v. Asstt. DIT ITA No. 2767/Mum/2022 20 February, 2023 Assessee by: M. M. Golwala, AR Revenue by: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR ORDER *Prashant Maharishi, A.M.* This appeal is filed by the assessee M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP (the assessee/ the appellant) against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre (Delhi) (the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 8-9-2022 for assessment year 2019 20 wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 23-9-2020 passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre Bangalore (the learned assessing officer) was partly allowed. 02. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising almost 9 grounds of appeal as under: This appeal is against the order passed under section 250 by Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NEAC), Delhi and relates to assessment year 2019-20, 1) The Appellant objects to the tax demand of Rs.2,23,46,830 in an order passed under section 154 of the Act. (2) CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer erred in passing an order under section 154 of the Act, withdrawing credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.2,09,15,619, without issue of a notice under section 154(3) of the Act. (3) CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer failed to considered that an order passed under section 154 of the Act, without issue of notice under section 154(3) is a nullity, and the said order requires to be cancelled on that ground alone. (4) Having regard to the facts of the case and the provisions of law, the Appellant submits that CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer be directed to restore credit for tax deducted at source to Rs.4,19.47,695, as was allowed in Intimation under section 143(1) dated 3-6-2020. (5) Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the Appellant was following cash basis of accounting, and had claimed credit for tax deducted at source, following the mechanism laid down by CBDT in the Income tax form of the respective years. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 1156 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, J.M.

Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP v. Asstt. DIT

ITA No. 2767/Mum/2022

20 February, 2023

Assessee by: M. M. Golwala, AR

Revenue by: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR

ORDER

Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP (the assessee/ the appellant) against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre (Delhi) (the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 8-9-2022 for assessment year 2019 20 wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 23-9-2020 passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre Bangalore (the learned assessing officer) was partly allowed.

02. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising almost 9 grounds of appeal as under:

This appeal is against the order passed under section 250 by Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NEAC), Delhi and relates to assessment year 2019-20,

1) The Appellant objects to the tax demand of Rs.2,23,46,830 in an order passed under section 154 of the Act.

(2) CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer erred in passing an order under section 154 of the Act, withdrawing credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.2,09,15,619, without issue of a notice under section 154(3) of the Act.

(3) CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer failed to considered that an order passed under section 154 of the Act, without issue of notice under section 154(3) is a nullity, and the said order requires to be cancelled on that ground alone.

(4) Having regard to the facts of the case and the provisions of law, the Appellant submits that CPC Bangalore/Assessing Officer be directed to restore credit for tax deducted at source to Rs.4,19.47,695, as was allowed in Intimation under section 143(1) dated 3-6-2020.

(5) Both the lower authorities failed to consider that the Appellant was following cash basis of accounting, and had claimed credit for tax deducted at source, following the mechanism laid down by CBDT in the Income tax form of the respective years.