AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A), Thane, (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 20/01/2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
“The Assessee filed its return of income on 28/02/2022 declaring business loss of Rs. 5,04,09,735/- by claiming refund of Rs. 58,46,906/- on account of TDS Credit and Rs. 87,987/- on account of TCS. Thus, total refund claimed was Rs. 59,34,893/-. Vide intimation dated 143(1), TDS credit was granted Rs. 53,01,765/-, TCS Credit was granted Rs. 87,987/- and interest u/s 244A was granted for Rs. 4,85,073/-. The Assessee filed rectification petition u/s 154 on 04/10/2022 and vide rectification order dated 01/11/2022 passed u/s 154. Subsequently, the TDS credit was granted to the extent of Rs. 58,43,215/-, TCS Credit was granted for Rs. 87,987/- and interest u/s 244A was granted for Rs. 4,90,487/-”.
Aggrieved by the Rectification Order dated 24/01/2023, Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/01/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on 20/01/2025. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/01/2025, Assessee preferred the captioned appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the CPC has no jurisdiction to issue suo-moto order of rectification without issuing prior show cause notice specified under Section 154(3) of the Act, therefore, submitted that the order of the CPC raising the demand of Rs. 4,84,270/- and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the said demand are erroneous and deserves to be set aside. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also committed error in remanding the matter to the A.O, thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the intimation passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, it is found that initially the CPC has allowed the credit of prepaid taxed of Rs. 53,89,752/- whereas in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act dated 24/01/2023, such credit was increased to Rs. 54,52,343/-. It is further observed that in rectification order at Serial No. 46(a) under the title ‘total income tax refund already issued as per previous order(s)’, a sum of Rs. 64,21,690/-has been mentioned, whereas, as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 30/09/2022 (which is rectified vide order u/s 154 dated 01/11/2022), the amount of refund issued to Assessee was mentioned as Rs. 58,74,830/-. On going through the record, it is found that there is one more order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 01/11/2022 has been issued which is in between the passing of order u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30/09/2022 and the impugned order u/s 154 dated 24/01/2023. The said fact has not been informed and brought to the notice of the Bench by both the parties. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we direct the A.O. to verify whether vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 01/11/2022, any refund of Rs. 64,21,690/- was issued as against refund of Rs. 58,74,830/- as per Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and if such refund was issued, the excess amount of refund now withdrawnrequires no interference, if no such refund was issued the demand so raised should be reduced to NIL. With these observations, this issue is restored to the file of the A.O. for making necessary verification as per law and decide afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.