TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Due to TDS Credit Delay for A.Y. 2010-11. Importance of Proper Procedures.</h1> <h3>Gurukrupa Engineering Co. Versus ITO Ward-1 (3) (1), Vadodara</h3> Gurukrupa Engineering Co. Versus ITO Ward-1 (3) (1), Vadodara - TMI Issues:Claim for TDS credit not allowed - Delay in filing return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 - Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) - Request to condone delay and allow TDS credit claim - Interpretation of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act - Genuine hardship due to heavy losses - Belated claim for refund - Authority to entertain claim for refund post prescribed period - Comparison with relevant legal precedents - Failure to approach appropriate authorities for refund claim - Dismissal of appeal by ITAT.Analysis:The appeal pertains to the non-allowance of TDS credit due to a delay in filing the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee received contract receipts and rental income during F.Y. 2009-10 but did not file the return for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer made additions to expenses and rejected the application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.The assessee contended that genuine hardship, including heavy losses and liquidity issues, led to the delay in filing the return. Reference was made to Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, allowing for condonation of delay in specific cases. The assessee sought to claim TDS credit based on these grounds. Additionally, legal arguments were presented regarding the interpretation of Sections 237, 239, and relevant case law, including the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee failed to approach the appropriate authorities for the refund claim. The ITAT noted that the assessee directly approached the Assessing Officer and then the CIT(A), bypassing the relevant authorities empowered to address such delays. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the ITAT concluded that the failure to follow the correct procedures cannot be rectified post-facto. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.In summary, the ITAT ruled against the assessee, highlighting the importance of following proper procedures and approaching the correct authorities for refund claims. Despite the genuine hardships faced by the assessee, the failure to adhere to the prescribed process led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural compliance in tax matters and the limited scope for rectification after bypassing the designated authorities.
TaxTMI 