TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assessee has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, III, Ahmedabad and to direct grant credit for TDS on verification of the Form No.26(AS) at Annexure A. 2.1. The facts leading to the present petition in nutshell are as under: 2.2. That the petitioner assesse E filed return of income for the assessment year 201011 on 15.11.2010 showing net income of Rs.1,72,700/. However, due to the oversight, the TDS claim of Rs.29,326/was not made in the original return of income although the income against such tax deduction was included in the computation of income. That assessee received the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. 3.0. Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner assesse has vehemently that the impugned order under Section 264 of the Act is bad in law since credit for TDS and refund thereof is not granted to the petitioner inspite the parallel details of relevant Form No.26 (AS), available with the revenue authorities at the time of processing of intimation under Section 143(1) as well as at the proceedings under Section 264 of the Act. 3.1. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 CIT has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner on technical ground of original return not being filed in time and hence the revised return being incompetent in law ignoring the case law. 3.2. It is submitted that as such deduction of the TDS a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 264 of the Act. Relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in fact TDS has been deducted and the had been deposited with the department. However, by mistake and / or through oversight while submitting the E return, the petitioner assesse did not claim credit for TDS already deposited with department in computation of the petitioner tax liability of the assessment year 201011. As soon as the petitioner assessee came to know that there was a mistake in not claiming credit of the TDS on receiving the intimation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpletion of the assessment, whichever is earlier 5.2. It is required to be noted that even the respondent no.1 in the impugned order has stated that intimation order under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. In that case, it was open for the assessee to submit the revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. As the revised return submitted by the assessee is within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under subsection (5) of Section 139, it cannot be said that revised return submitted by the petitionerassessee was not within the limitation period. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that revise....