Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Principle of Substantial Justice V/s Technical Consideration – Not Condoning Delay Would Amount to Legalising an Illegal Order
ITAT Bangalore in the case of Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company V/s ITO ruled that Govt. cannot retain even a single pie of citizen’s money as tax, when it is not authorised by any law.
CPC Bengaluru in Intimation u/s 143(1), disallowed TDS credit partially which was appearing in Form 26AS. Assessee had filed rectification application u/s 154 & was under honest & bona fide belief that outcome would resolve the issue & there was no need to file appeal for the mistakes apparent from the record.
Assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) belatedly. CIT(A) without considering merits of the case dismissed the appeal on grounds that the same is filed beyond time limit permitted u/s 249.
Before Tribunal, assessee argued that gross receipts reflected in Form 26AS were higher than receipts declared in Return of Income as assessee was merely a commission agent selling goods on behalf of principal agriculturists. Further, TDS u/s 194Q was deducted by purchasers treating assessee firm as seller of goods whereas assessee being a commission agent sold goods on behalf of agriculturists declaring commission & interest income.
