TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quarters for both the aforementioned years i.e. A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y.2014-15, as under: Sr. No. ITA No. Financial year Qtr. Form Type Amount of late filing levy u/s. 234E Date of original TDS return filed Due date of filing Returns DIN & Order No. 1. 184/RPR/2022 2013-14 Q1 24Q 31000 2^nd Sep-14 15-Jul-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045268707 (1) 2. 185/RPR/2022 2013-14 Q2 24Q 31000 2^nd Sep-14 15-Oct-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045268507(1) 3. 186/RPR/2022 2013-14 Q3 24Q 31000 2^nd Sep-14 15-Jan-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045268848(1) 4. 187/RPR/2022 2013-14 Q4 24Q 22000 2^nd Sep-14 15-May-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045268179(1) 5. 188/RPR/2022 2014-15 Q1 24Q 58200 18-May-15 15-Jul-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045269367(1) 6. 189/RPR/2022 2014-15 Q2 24Q 39800 18-May-15 15-Oct-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045269774(1) 7. 190/RPR/2022 2014-15 Q3 24Q 21400 18-May-15 15-Jan-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045270029(1) 8. 191/RPR/2022 2014-15 Q4 24Q 5400 11-Jun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s. 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds of appeal and the appellant's submission. On perusal of the rectification order, it is seen that the Appellant had filed the rectification letter on 02.02.2022 against the original order passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014. As per the provision of Section 154 of the Act, rectification can be made upto 4 years from the end of the financial year in which order sought to be rectified was passed. However, in this case the appellant has filed rectification application after the expiry of more than seven years from the end of the financial year in which order sought to be rectified was passed. Thus, the rectification application of the appellant is time barred. 5.1.3 Further, it is seen from the rectification order, wherein the- DCIT-CPC-(TDS) has not found any mistake apparent from the record and hence the rectification order was passed without any changes in the opinion made in the original order passed on 06.09.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim must constitute an error on the part of the assessee which is apparent on the face of the record. 2. The deduction claimed must be inadmissible on the face of the return and the documents accompanying it (Khatau Junker v Pathania 196 ITR 55, CIT v Sitaram Textiles 248 ITR 139). A debatable issue cannot be decided by the assessing officer under the guise of making an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) (Coates v DCIT 214 ITR 498, CIT v Shikhar Chand Jain 263 ITR 221, CIT v Manubhai M Patel 296 ITR 143). 3. Further, what falls within the scope of rectification as visualized under the provisions of section 154, is the case of a mistake, and such mistake should be apparent from record. Judicial pronouncements on the subject have laid down the line of reasoning that the mistake should be obvious, clear, and patent and should not involve two opinions (CIT v PK Bhardwaj 279 ITR 326, CIT v Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd 279 ITR 477). 4. The scope of making adjustments under section 143(1), is somewhat similar to the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 (Khatau Junker v Pathania [1992] 196 1TR 55, Bom), The Hon'ble Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is not entitled to such a deduction. 23. The use of the phrases "prima facie admissible" in clause (ii) to the proviso and "prima facie inadmissible' in clause (iii) to the proviso also lend support to this interpretation. In its literal sense, "prima facie" means on the face of it. Hence, on the face of the return and the documents and accounts accompanying it, the deduction claimed must be inadmissible. Only then, can it be disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143." 5.1.7 The order was passed u/s. 200A on 06.09.2014, which was appealable. However, the appellant has not filed any appeal against the order within the specified time period. Rather, the appellant has filed rectification application u/s. 154 dated 02.02.2022 after more than seven years of order dated 143(1) which was brought to be rectified. In response, the rectification order was passed on 02.02.2022, wherein no changes have been made by the Centralized Processing Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al against the order u/s. 200A of the Act. Thus, the appeal on this issue is not admissible and therefore, dismissed. 16. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is Dismissed u/s. 250 read with section 251 of Income tax Act, 1961." 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the orders of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC has carried the matters in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 7. Ostensibly, the assessee has assailed the respective orders of the CIT(Appeals) on the solitary ground that he had erred in failing to appreciate that as the levy of late fees u/s. 243E of the Act by the DCIT, CPC-TDS for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was in the nature of a "mistake apparent from record"; thus, the same was rectifiable u/s. 154 of the Act. However, we find that the observation of the CIT(Appeals), NFAC that as per the provisions of Section 154 of the Act, rectification of a mistake can be made only upto four yea....