TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned assessment order without taking into consideration all the facts before him which make it unreasonable , unjustified and bad in law and facts, therefore, liable to be quashed. (ii) The Income Tax Return is erroneously considered invalid u/s 139 (9). The objection were never communicated to assessee for reply. (iii) The rejection of refund claim is bad in law and not based on the facts of the case. (iv) The rejection is against the principal of natural justice. (v) The rejection also is not in conformity with the judicial pronouncements and CBDT Guidelines. (vi) The rejection is unreasonably penalizing for technical errors / omission. (vii) The Income Tax Department has unreasonably ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee was required in rectify the mistake within 15 days time of receiving the notice. Further, there is no role of AO to communicate separately about the defective return as in your case the department already informed you on 23.04.2013 about the defective return for AY 2012-13. Since, you failed to respond within the allotted time, the return filed was treated is invalid. In other words, it will be as if you never filed your ITR for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012- 13. In view of the above facts and also for the reason already communicated that the TDS was in the name of M/s MHVS Finlease Pvt. Ltd. the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and claim of refund is hereby rejected." 4. Upon assessee's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, "The TDS was in the name of M/s MHVS Finlease Pvt. Ltd., the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and claim of return is hereby rejected". 7. The assessee has clearly stated throughout the proceedings for its TDS claim of Rs.275190.00 that the benefit of such claim has not been availed by M/s. MHVS Finleese Pvt. Ltd. (further changed its name AA Finlease Pvt. Ltd.) and the respected income is shown by AA Finlease Pvt. Ltd. in its financial statement. Therefore, the revenue, having assessed M/s AA Finlease Pvt. Ltd's income in respect to such TDS claim and cannot now deny the assessee's claim of Refund merely on the technical ground that the TDS credit could not be given to Non Existent Company. 8. The in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y CBDT has a/so issued instruction No.5/2013 [F. NO. 275/03/2013-IT(B)], DATED 8-7-2013. We are placing hereunder the copy of the instruction for your kind perusal. In view of the order of tile Hon'ble Delhi. High Court (reference: para 50 of the order); it has been decided by the Board that when an assessee approaches the Assessing officer with requisite details and particulars in tile form of TDS certificate as an evidence against any mismatched amount, the said Assessing Officer will verify whether or not the deductor has made payment of the TDS in the Government Account and if the payment has been made credit of the same should be given to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to ascertain and verify th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der law. The Department duly informed the appellant on 23.04.2013 that the return was found to be defective and as per section 139(9) the assessee was required to rectify the mistake within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Since the appellant failed to respond within the allotted time, the return filed has been treated as invalid. The AO has also stated that in other words, it would be held as if the appellant had never filed the ITR for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Section 246A of the Act specifically mentions the orders passed under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against which appeals can be filed before CIT (Appeals). However, the Section 246A does not provide for filing any app....