LALIT PRABHULAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2314/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for credit of advance tax and self-assessment tax. If allowable under the Income Tax Act, the credit should be granted to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed credit for advance tax and self-assessment tax paid, which the Assessing Officer allegedly failed to grant, leading to an incorrect demand. The assessee's rectification application was rejected by the AO and CIT(A) on grounds of limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the rectification application was barred by limitation, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit for advance and self-assessment tax paid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

1.

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 29-09- 2025 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the rectification application u/s 154 on the ground of limitation u/s 154(7).

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rectification order dated 09.07.2014 was never communicated to the appellant and was received for the first time only on 09.05.2024 via CPC email; therefore the limitation period could not have begun earlier.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring that non-communication of the rectification order constitutes a breach of statutory obligation and denial of natural justice.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection of rectification without considering that limitation u/s 154(7) begins from the date of service of order, not the order date.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting credit for advance tax and self-assessment tax duly paid by the assessee, despite challans being on record.

6.

The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding binding judicial precedents, including ITAT Ahmedabad ruling in Liberty Pesticides & Fertilizer Ltd. v. ACIT, holding that rectification cannot be rejected as time-barred where the order was never served on the assessee.

7.

The demand of Rs. 1,70,260 raised without granting tax credit is unjust, illegal and liable to be deleted.

8.

The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal.”

3.

For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance tax and Rs. 1,00,000/- as self assessment tax. The assessee submitted through its rectification request u/s. 154 of the Act that the Assessing Officer while processing the return has not given the credit of advance tax amount of Rs. 50,000/- and self assessment tax amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has wrongly raised demand of Rs. 1,70,260/-

4.

From the perusal of the records, the assessee has submitted From 26AS which shows that the assessee has paid advance tax and the self assessment tax. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the said contention of the assessee and if allowable as per Income Tax Act, the assessee be given the credit of the said advance tax paid and self assessment tax paid. 2

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →