Period of limitation against rectification order can not be counted from the date of assessment order
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3403 (2020) (10) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee merely on the ground of limitation in limine.
The case of the assessee was that Commissioner (Appeals) erred in misconstruing the appeal as preferred against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and proceedings to deal with the appeal as belated.
The return of income of the assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(1) of the Act and intimation was issued to the assessee by disallowing claim of Income-tax deducted at source (TDS).
The assessee being aggrieved filed an rectification application u/s 154 of the Act wherein it was submitted by assessee that relief on account of taxes paid in US was wrongly claimed as TDS.
The AO rejected by the AO firstly because as per AO that the assessee itself had claimed the amount as TDS in the return of income and now it was claimed that the said amount reflected credit for taxes paid in foreign country. The AO observed that there was no mistake apparent from record which could be rectified within mandate of Section 154 of the Act.
Secondly, the AO held that the rectification application was filed by assessee beyond statutory period of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed viz. intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the short ground of limitation itself.
- Revisionary order purportedly passed earlier but dispatched after written Submissions quashed
- Assessment u/s 147 based on seized material found during search of third party void ab-initio
- TDS deductors given relief for non deduction of TDS at higher rate for inoperative PANs
- Reassessment order quashed due to error in personal hearing video conferencing link
- Assessee may show that it was over assessed under erroneous impression of law
The Tribunal bserved that jurisdictional error had taken place at the end of CIT(A) as he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the short grounds of limitation that the appeal is filed late by assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) erred on the ground as the order which was assailed by the assessee before him was an order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act dismissing rectification application and not the intimation issued by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional error had taken place at the end of CIT(A) and the end of justice demanded that the appellate order passed by CIT(A) has to be set aside and all the issues raised by assessee before CIT(A) be restored for fresh adjudication.
The appeal was accordingly allowed in favour of the aseessee.
