Taxpayer may raise additional grounds before DRP; DRP wrongly declined jurisdiction over rectification under Section 154, case restored

ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that a taxpayer may raise additional grounds before the DRP; the DRP erred in declining jurisdiction over a rectification claim that taxpayer had filed before completion of the draft assessment. The Tribunal found the claim was made before both the AO and DRP, directed restoration to the AO to verify the rectification request and grant relief if admissible under law, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the assessee, being a tax resident of a treaty country, can seek treaty-based relief for income (LTCG, STCG and dividend) erroneously declared taxable in the original return though claimed before completion of draft assessment and before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) without filing a revised return.

2. Whether the DRP has jurisdiction to admit and consider additional grounds or claims not originally set out in the objections/return and to direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow treaty relief where such claim was raised during assessment proceedings.

3. Whether the AO/DRP were obliged to give relief in assessment proceedings for a mistake in the return where the claim was made before finalization of the draft assessment order but after the statutory date for filing a revised return had lapsed.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Treaty-based relief for income erroneously declared taxable in the return

Legal framework: Section 5(2) (taxation of non-residents), Section 90(2) (applicability of DTAA over domestic law if more beneficial), requirement of Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and Form 10F for availing treaty benefit; assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with 144C(13) and DRP powers under section 144C(5).

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the principle that treaty benefits can be availed by a non-resident upon production of requisite documents (TRC, Form 10F) and that where DTAA provisions are more beneficial, they apply per section 90(2). A relevant High Court decision (Lahmeyer Holding) was invoked to support consideration of issues arising in assessment even if not part of variations.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee was a tax resident of the treaty country and had produced the TRC and Form 10F. The Tribunal treated the erroneous inclusion of LTCG, STCG and incorrect rate of dividend tax as a bona fide error in the return which was pointed out to the AO before finalization of draft assessment and also raised before the DRP. The Tribunal reasoned that where the claim is raised during the assessment process and supported by requisite documents entitling treaty relief, the AO is required to verify and grant relief if admissible irrespective of absence of a revised return.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal's determination that treaty relief can be considered and granted in assessment proceedings when the assessee produces requisite documentary proof and brings the mistake to the AO's attention before finalization of assessment, even absent a revised return. Obiter - Observations about the broader policy of permitting corrections in returns generally were dicta to the extent not necessary for the decision.

Conclusions: The claim for treaty relief in respect of LTCG, STCG and dividend was held to be a permissible claim in the assessment proceedings and deserving of verification and grant by the AO if found admissible under law.

Issue 2 - Jurisdiction of the DRP to admit and consider additional grounds/claims

Legal framework: Explanation to section 144C(8) empowering the DRP to examine issues arising out of assessment proceedings; Notification No. 84/2009, Clause 7(4) permitting the panel to allow an eligible assessee to urge additional grounds not set forth in the objections; and the statutory scheme of DRP recommendations under section 144C.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the decision of the High Court in Lahmeyer Holding which held that the DRP is empowered to examine issues arising out of assessment proceedings even if such issues are not part of the proposed variations by the AO, pursuant to the Explanation to section 144C(8).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal construed Notification Clause 7(4) and the Explanation to section 144C(8) together to conclude that the DRP has jurisdiction to permit additional grounds and to consider claims raised during assessment proceedings. Given that the assessee had raised the treaty relief claim before both the AO and DRP, the DRP's blanket refusal to admit the claim on the ground that it was not in the original return was held to be incorrect. The Tribunal emphasised that procedural limitations (non-filing of a revised return) do not ipso facto oust the DRP's jurisdiction to consider relevant issues arising in assessment proceedings when the assessee seeks to rectify an evident mistake and produces supporting documentation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The DRP has jurisdiction to admit and consider additional grounds/claims raised during the course of assessment proceedings under the Notification and the Explanation to s.144C(8), and may permit urging such additional grounds with leave. Obiter - Comments on the scope of AO's administrative discretion where records are incomplete beyond the facts of this case.

Conclusions: The DRP erred in rejecting the claim solely because it was not made in the original return; the DRP is empowered to entertain additional grounds and should have considered the treaty-relief claim on its merits.

Issue 3 - Obligation of AO/DRP to grant relief where mistake is pointed out before finalization of draft assessment but after expiry of revised-return period

Legal framework: Statutory assessment process (draft assessment under s.144C(1), AO's final assessment u/s 143(3) read with 144C(13)), provisions governing filing of revised returns, and statutory mechanism for DRP review under s.144C.

Precedent Treatment: Reliance on statutory notification and judicial authority indicating that procedural curbs (such as non-filing of revised return) do not necessarily preclude the AO or DRP from rectifying mistakes highlighted during assessment proceedings when documentary support is furnished.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee brought the error to the AO's attention by a written claim before the draft assessment was finalized and also raised the matter before the DRP. Given the timing (before finalization) and the presence of supporting documents (TRC and Form 10F), the AO is required to verify the claim and grant relief if admissible. The Tribunal treated the non-filing of a revised return as not being determinative where the factual record and supporting documents enable the AO to decide the claim on merits. Accordingly, the appropriate remedial step was to remit the matter to the AO for verification and decision, rather than to deny relief outright for procedural lapse.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an assessee points out an error before finalization of draft assessment and produces requisite documentary proof, the AO should verify and grant relief if admissible notwithstanding the absence of a revised return; denial solely on procedural grounds is impermissible. Obiter - Observations on administrative practice and the balance between procedural regularity and substantive justice.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed restoration of the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the assessee's claim and grant relief if found admissible; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Cross-references

See Issue 1 and Issue 2 analysis for interplay between treaty entitlement (s.90(2)/s.5(2)), documentary prerequisites (TRC/Form 10F) and DRP's power under the Explanation to s.144C(8) and Notification Clause 7(4) to admit additional grounds raised during assessment proceedings.

---