TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.1) The Ld CIT-(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld Assessing Officer by confirming the action of denying the credit for tax deducted at source amounting to of denying the credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 36,85,776/-. 1.2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to grant credit for tax deducted at source which was attributable to the income accounted by the appellant in its profit & loss account and duly offered for tax by the Appellant. The Ld CIT-(A) has erred in holding that the non granting of TDS credit which was already claimed by the Appellant in its return of income is not a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified. 1.3) The Appellant submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by it to the ITGICL and remits full amount of insurance premium. ITGICL gives to the assessee commission and additional incentives. The additional incentive received is credited to the bank account held in the name of one of the director of the assessee whereas, the same has been included in its profit and loss account and offered to tax in its return of income. As the income is credited to the bank account held in the name of one of the director, credit for TDS in respect of the additional incentive is reflected in the Form 26AS of the director. The Director in his individual return of income has not considered the aforesaid income nor TDS thereon as the income belongs to the assessee company. For the assessment year 2013-2014 ,a regula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the credit of TDS to the assessee. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration the arguments of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "4.4.1. I have considered the rival contentions. In this case the two insurance companies paid commission to Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Director of the appellant company and deducted tax at source as required under the Act. In its return the appellant declared the commission income in its return and also claimed the credit for the tax deducted at source by the two insurance companies. Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal who was the actual recipient of the commission neither declared the commission nor claimed the credit for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject matter of the order u/s 154 can be relied upon. Therefore, in my view, the AO was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for TDS credit." 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal who is director of the assessee company has received additional commission from the IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on behalf of the assessee and TDS was also deducted by the said company . Both these amount additional incentives and TDS was reflected in form No.26AS of Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal. However, the commission belonged to the assessee company and accordingly the same was included in the return of income of the assessee and corresponding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26-AS for the A.Y. 2013-14, under the above PAN, of Rs. 36,85,776/- against the revenue receipts from the Insurance companies is neither claimed nor accounted for in the books of accounts of Pramod Kumar Agrawal because these revenue receipts are pertaining to the initial transaction of M/s Easylink Insurance Services Pvt. Ltd. and therefore these revenue receipts are accounted for in the books of M/s Easylink Insurance Services Pvt. Ltd. and TDS on that is also claimed in the same books of account. These revenue receipts of the A.Y. 2013-14 as per the 26-AS is not assessed under the PAN of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and the same can be verified from the assessment order". The submission of the assessee is duly considered with f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which are prima-facie not allowable to the assessee on the basis of material available before the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO by reasoning that AO is correct in denying the credit of TDS to the assessee as the assessee sought to rely on the new material in the form of affidavit, letter of AO of Shri Pramod Kumar Agrawal to establish that there is a mistake in the order under section 143(1) of the Act, however, under section 154 of the Act the scope is very limited as the material sought to be relied by the assessee was not part of the record at the time of passing the order under section 143(1) of the Act. 8. After considering the facts on record, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) on this ....