Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16296.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 245 Views


The Tax Publishers Gopinath Ghorai v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 01/Kol/2016, dt. 29-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2219 (Kol-Trib) Rectification on reassessment on point of original assessment whether time barred *Facts:* Assessee was transporting oil for Indian oil in his scrutiny assessment for assessment year 2005-06 was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) INR 1.12 crores for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on tanker hire charges. The order under section 143(3) was dated 18-12-2007. A writ was filed in the high court against this order. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition on 16-1-2009 pending writ petition. Further appeal to ITAT was not made due to pendency of writ. Reassessment order on the same case was passed on 24-12-2010 where in the computation was done taking into account the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Assessee in the meantime withdrew the writ and filed rectification petition on the reassessment citing that the same was mistake apparent on record by including the section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in reassessment. This was rejected by assessing officer. Assessees plea was the time limit of rectification of 4 years was from 24-12-2010 and not from 18-12-2007 as the original order got merged with reassessment order under doctrine of merger and that TDS ought to have been done under section 194I and not section 194C thus the original assessment/reassessment were apparently wrong on apparent face of the record. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the rectification was time barred, there was nothing new added on this fact in the reassessment thus was not mistake apparent from record. The issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) with no evidences from assessee is a debatable issue thus outside the scope of section 154, so is the plea that the TDS ought to have been done under section 194I and not under 194C which also is a debatable issue outside scope of section 154. Thus Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the rectification. On further appeal: Held in favour of the revenue that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) refusing the rectification was factually correct as it was time barred and on topics of debatable issues and the doctrine of merger cannot hold good in this.

The Tax Publishers

Gopinath Ghorai v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 01/Kol/2016, dt. 29-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2219 (Kol-Trib)

Rectification on reassessment on point of original assessment whether time barred

Facts:

Assessee was transporting oil for Indian oil in his scrutiny assessment for assessment year 2005-06 was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) INR 1.12 crores for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C on tanker hire charges. The order under section 143(3) was dated 18-12-2007. A writ was filed in the high court against this order. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition on 16-1-2009 pending writ petition. Further appeal to ITAT was not made due to pendency of writ. Reassessment order on the same case was passed on 24-12-2010 where in the computation was done taking into account the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Assessee in the meantime withdrew the writ and filed rectification petition on the reassessment citing that the same was mistake apparent on record by including the section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in reassessment. This was rejected by assessing officer. Assessees plea was the time limit of rectification of 4 years was from 24-12-2010 and not from 18-12-2007 as the original order got merged with reassessment order under doctrine of merger and that TDS ought to have been done under section 194I and not section 194C thus the original assessment/reassessment were apparently wrong on apparent face of the record. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the rectification was time barred, there was nothing new added on this fact in the reassessment thus was not mistake apparent from record. The issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) with no evidences from assessee is a debatable issue thus outside the scope of section 154, so is the plea that the TDS ought to have been done under section 194I and not under 194C which also is a debatable issue outside scope of section 154. Thus Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the rectification. On further appeal:

Held in favour of the revenue that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) refusing the rectification was factually correct as it was time barred and on topics of debatable issues and the doctrine of merger cannot hold good in this.