2018 (12) TMI 574 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rectifies order for tax assessment year 2011-12, addressing Sec. 206C(1C) and 206AA provisions.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Srinagar Versus The Director Geology and Mining, Srinagar.

The Tribunal rectified the order under Sec. 254(2) for the assessment year 2011-12, addressing the correct application of Sec. 206C(1C) and Sec. 206AA ... Rectification of mistake - Applicability of provisions of section 206AA - application filed u/s 254(2) as barred by limitation as the same was supposed to file within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed - Held that:- We are in agreement with the claim of the Revenue Department that the proviso of sub-section to Sec.6A of Sec.206C of the Act was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 and made applicable w.e.f 1st July, 2012, as in the instant Misc. Application the assessment year involved is 2011-12 and hence, the said proviso to subsection 6A of Sec.206C shall not be applicable which seems to be inadvertently overlooked by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, error/mistake apparent from the order is liable to be rectified. AO and Ld. CIT(A) applied the provisions of section 206AA of the Act which mandates requirement to furnish permanent account number by persons who are entitled to receive any sum or income or amount, on which tax is deductible u/s XVIIB of the Act. Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue Department stands allowed. Issues Involved:Rectification of order under Sec. 254(2) for the assessment year 2011-12 due to incorrect application of provisions of Sec. 206C(1C) and Sec. 206AA.Analysis:1. Limitation Objection by Assessee:The Revenue Department filed a Misc. Application seeking rectification of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The assessee objected that the application was filed beyond the limitation period of six months from the date of the order. However, the application was filed within the prescribed period as per Sec. 254(2) of the Act, despite initial defects which were rectified within time. Therefore, the objection of the assessee was not considered valid.2. Merits of the Application:The order directed the correct application of Sec. 206C(1C) provisions regarding tax collection at source from contractors. The Revenue Department argued that the proviso to Sec. 206C(6A) was wrongly typed as 206(9C)6A/206C(1C)6A, which was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 1st July 2012 and not applicable for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal agreed that the proviso was not applicable and rectified the order accordingly.3. Rectification of Order:After considering the arguments and provisions of law, the Tribunal rectified the order by substituting the incorrect references and directing the Assessing Officer to apply the correct provisions of law. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper application of the relevant sections.4. Decision and Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue Department, acknowledging the error in the original order and rectifying the same. The rectification was made to ensure the correct application of provisions of Sec. 206C(1C) and Sec. 206AA for the assessment year 2011-12. The order was pronounced in open court on 04.12.2018.In summary, the judgment addressed the rectification of an order under Sec. 254(2) for the assessment year 2011-12, focusing on the correct application of provisions of Sec. 206C(1C) and Sec. 206AA. The Tribunal rectified the order due to the incorrect typing of a proviso and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the correct provisions of law. The Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue Department were allowed, ensuring the proper interpretation of tax collection at source provisions for the specified assessment year.