TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (January, 2009 to June, 2009), the Petitioner was posted and working with Pershing Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "UK Counterpart") which paid the salary to the Petitioner and deducted tax under the applicable laws of the United Kingdom. Subsequently, he was posted to iNautix Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Indian Counterpart") and started receiving salaries in India from July 2009 onwards. The Indian counterpart issued Form-16 to the Petitioner with a gross salary of Rs.30,37,539/- which included the salary received from the UK counterpart of Rs.8,69,078/-. Form-16 mentioned that the total tax deducted/withheld (hereinafter also referred to as "TDS") under Section 192 was Rs. 7,42,184/-. In the footnote in the Form-16, it was stated that the said TDS included credit of tax withheld abroad of Rs. 1,86,531/-. 4. The Petitioner filed the income tax return based on the said Form-16 and claimed credit of TDS as Rs. 7,42,184/-. Upon filing of the said return of income, acknowledgment in Form ITR-V was generated on 27.07.2010 wherein the total TDS claimed was reflected as Rs. 7,42,184/-. 5. Before us, it is the submission of the Petitioner t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under Section 143(1). 9. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted as under: (a) That the Petitioner in the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 claimed aggregate credit of TDS as Rs. 7,42,184/- (which included the foreign tax Credit of Rs. 1,86,531/-). The said TDS credit was claimed based on the Form-16 issued by the Indian counterpart (employer). Further, the footnote to the said Form-16 duly mentioned that total TDS of Rs. 7,42,184/- included tax withheld abroad of Rs. 1,86,531/-. (b) That the Petitioner was never served with any intimation under Section 143(1) for A.Y. 2010-11. Accordingly, in the absence of any intimation/demand notice the recovery of any sort cannot be made. (c) That despite Petitioner having filed a rectification application on 11.04.2018 before Respondent No. 1, the same is still pending and not disposed of. (d) That the credit for foreign tax credit of Rs. 1,86,531/- was arbitrarily rejected. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, has tendered an Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No. 1 dated 01.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ode of service of the alleged intimation under Section 143(1) for A.Y. 2010-11. • Intimation under Section 143(1) for A.Y.2017-18 and the status of refund. 12. In rejoinder, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contended as under:- (a) That separate disclosure with respect to TDS withheld abroad was not made in the return of income because in Form-16 the Indian Counterpart had disclosed the total amount of tax credit of Rs. 7,42,184/- in the column of total taxes paid. Petitioner was of the view that he should not deviate from what was mentioned in Form 16, and therefore, reported the total TDS in the return of income including the foreign tax credit. Thus, again separately disclosing the foreign tax credit of Rs. 1,86,370/- could have led to double claim of the said amount. (b) That Respondent No. 1 neither disposed of the rectification application of the Petitioner nor it produced the alleged intimation under Section 143(1) raising a demand for A.Y. 2010-11 during the course of appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. (c) That Respondent No. 1 even at this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit of assistance of any professional, should not have been deprived from claiming the legitimate foreign tax credit merely for not reporting the same in the separate line item provided for in the ITR but reporting/claiming it with the regular/domestic TDS credit. 15. The Petitioner after receiving intimation under Section 245 dated 07.11.2017 duly filed the rectification application explaining the above referred factual matrix to Respondent No. 1. However, on account of Respondent No. 1's inaction the same is pending till date. 16. It is pertinent to note that in the said rectification application dated 07.11.2017 [placed at 'Exhibit C' of this Petition], the Petitioner duly stated that it was only upon receipt of intimation under Section 245 (for adjusting the refunds against the alleged demand of A.Y. 2010-11), the Petitioner became aware of the alleged impugned demand being raised for A.Y. 2010-11. He stated that he had not received any order for A.Y. 2010-11 raising such demand. He also requested Respondent No. 1 to provide him with the copy of such order raising the alleged impugned demand. However, neither the said order raising the said demand was provided to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer. Further, even in paragraph 17, Respondent No. 1 states that physical acknowledgement of service of the notice of demand was not available with him. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, fairly states that at this stage it would be difficult for the department to retrieve such an old record of the notice of demand dated 25.06.2011. He, however, fairly agrees that the alleged impugned demand was raised merely on account of difference in approach of reporting the foreign tax credit. 18. We observe that clause (d) of Section 143(1) requires that the intimation should be prepared/generated and be sent to the assessee specifying the sum determined to be payable by the assesssee or the sum due as refund to the assessee. Further, the second proviso to Section 143(1) [as applicable to A.Y. 2010-11] reads as under:- "Provided further that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the return is made." 19. Further, sub-Section (1) of Section 156 of the Act reads as under:- "156. (1) When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payabl....