TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition are that the petitioner/assessee filed its Income Tax Return on 20.09.2013, covering Assessment Year 2013-2014. Its return reflected the tax deducted at source (TDS) as Rs. 15,62,500/-. It appears, however, that a larger amount - Rs. 31,25,000/- had escaped the attention of the Assessee; so it could not be claimed. As an adjustment or for the purpose of consequent refund, the assessee paid the amounts due in terms of its calculation and assessment was framed under Section 143(1). The period for revising the demands ended on 31.03.2015 (Assessment year 2013-2014), however the error that had crept in while furnishing the returns was not rectified through an application or a refund undertaken. The petitioner claims that when it did dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available to it at the time of filing ITR has not been proved during the course of proceedings before me. In absence of any such relevant evidence, the claim of the assessee that due to the mistake of the CA, claim of TDS was not made has remained unproved. 6. In this case, return for the AY 2013-14 was filed on 29.09.2013 and the assessee could have revised the return by 31.03.2015. However, the assessee had not filed the revised ITR to claim refund of Rs. 31,25,000/-. Considering no action by the assessee to claim substantial amount of refund of Rs. 31,25,000/- during available period of more than one and a half year from the date of filing of ITR, the assessee was asked to explain reason for such inaction when the company had incurre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f filing of return of income or during time available to file the revised return of income for bonafide reason cannot be accepted in absence of any verifiable credible material evidence in support of the claim." 4. It is pointed out on behalf of the assessee by Mr. Kapoor, that the TDS portal maintained by the Revenue in fact reflected at the relevant time that for Assessment Year 2013-2014, additional TDS credit to the extent of Rs. 31,25,000/- was payable which in turn implied that the amounts were paid. Counsel relied on statements made in the application to say that inadvertence or omission in claiming appropriate adjustment and consequent refund was on account of its auditor/chartered accountant's lack of diligence. The petitioner r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court including Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shelly Products and Anr., (2003) 261 ITR 367, and held as follows : "11. Provisions of assessment are independent of provisions of refund, but the provisions relating to refund may be dependent on the assessment. (See Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Central India Industries Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 555). An assessment order or an order quantifying the income/net wealth can be rectified or modified in the proceedings as contemplated by the enactment. The assessment order or the order quantifying the income or taxable wealth cannot be challenged on merits while the authorities examine the question of refund. The authorities cannot go behind the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es should act as facilitators and not occlude and obstruct. The role of tax authorities has been aptly described in CIT versus Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 208 as :- "19............ The function of the assessing officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers." 8. The rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner's opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof any assessee could have brought on record, to substantiate the inadvertence of its advisor. The net result ....