Rama Krishna Ramisetty Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that condonation of delay of 10 years in filing of an appeal allowed since tax cannot be collected without authority of law and rejection of appeal on technical ground of delayed filing would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.
Facts- The appellant, an individual was an employee with the State Bank of Hyderabad (now State Bank of India), at Colaba, Mumbai. The State Bank of Hyderabad (the employer) had issued to the Appellant, a Form 16 dated 02.05.2011, wherein total income was indicated at Rs. 9,86,373/-. However, the tax was deducted on actual income which was Rs. 5,02,558/-. Accordingly, the Appellant filed the return of income on 29.06.2011, admitting the total income to be Rs. 9,86,370/- totally relying on the Form 16 issued by the employer.
Thereafter, CPC issued an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) raising a demand of Rs 1,49,380/-. The demand of Rs.1,49,380/-could be because the tax TDS was done on actual income of Rs.5,02,558/-. Whereas the income indicated in the Form-16, income tax return and intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is Rs.9,86,373/-. Subsequently, intimation u/s 245 was issued to the Appellant adjusting the refund of AY 2013-14 with demand of impugned AY. Upon receipt of intimation u/s 245 on 1210-2013 the Assessee became aware that income offered in the return was Rs.9,86,373/- as against actual income of Rs.5,02,558/- which was substantially lower than the amount mentioned in Form 16. Thereafter, the Appellant requested the Employer to issue updated/Revised Form-16 showing correct particulars. Subsequently, revised Form-16 was issued by the Employer on 20.11.2013, determining income to be Rs 5,02,558/-. However, the time limit to file revised return had expired by 31.03.2013 and accordingly, revised return could not be filed.
