THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

(A.Y. 2014-2015) The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.12.2021 passed for A.Y. 2014-15.

Before us, the Registry has reported that appeal is time-barred by 110 days. The Authorized Signatory of the assessee-Company has filed application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been pleaded that its previous counsel Shri Biswajit Shaym was sick for a prolonged period and unfortunately expired on 25.02.2023 and, therefore, appeal could not be filed within time. On account of non-availability of new Tax Consultant, the appeal become time-barred by 110 days. After taking into consideration the explanation given by the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.

The assessee has taken two substantial grounds of appeal, in which it has further taken three sub-grounds under Ground No. 1 and five sub-grounds under Ground No. 2.

Before appreciating the controversy agitated in this appeal, we deem it appropriate to take note of the list of events filed by the assessee, which will explain the brief history of the litigation, which reads as under:-

A perusal of the above would indicate that there was a double deduction of Rs.12,85,93,467/- in the original assessment, which was sought to be rectified by the assessee itself by way of an 4

Ld. Commissioner thereafter made reference to a large number of decisions and set aside the assessment order. Paragraph 5 is also worth to note, which reads as under:- “5. I have considered the facts of the case and the short submission of the assesses. The sole issue pertains to excess deduction to the tune of Rs.12,85,93,467/- as elucidated in the show cause notice. The A.O had clearly not considered the glaring observation of the columns of schedule BP, thereby mechanically proceeding to compute the taxable income of the assesses as per its claim. In its submission during the present proceedings, assessee has accepted the ‘apparent’ mistake and 'inadvertent' wrong filing of the return of income. In view of the same, the impugned assessment order which is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, requires to be rectified immediately by giving effect to this order. The ensuing tax demand along with interest as per the Income Tax Act, should be adjusted with 5

Ld. Assessing Officer has given effect to this order vide assessment order dated 4th December, 2019 passed under section 263 read with section 143(3). The assessee is not dissatisfied qua giving effect to the order of ld. CIT passed under section 263 to the extent of exclusion of alleged double deduction of Rs.12,85,93,467/-.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated the grievance of the assessee qua ultimate computation of taxes. He submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer has computed the demand as under:- (a) Gross Tax Rs.5,17,74,042/- (b) Surcharge Rs. 51,77,404/- (c) Education Cess Rs. 17,08,543/-

Against the above demand, the assessee had paid as under:- (a) TDS/TCS Rs. 36,77,765/- (b) Advance Tax Rs4,90,00,000/- (c) Self-assessment Tax Rs. 26,80,000/- TOTAL Rs.5,53,57,765/-

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has tax credit of Rs.5,53,57,765/- but the ld. Assessing Officer has excluded a sum of Rs.2,08,33,780/-. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that this was already excluded therefore, 6

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer is directed to reverify and if no refund is being granted to the assessee, then credit of this amount should not be excluded.

In the second ground of appeal