Income Tax

Period of limitation against rectification order can not be counted from the date of assessment order

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.

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.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago