Wp/12453/2004 Of M/S. Latha Engineering Company (P) Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax A.p.-Ii

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALEANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12453 of 2004 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned StandingCounsel for respondents. 2. This Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction to the firstrespondent to give direction to the Assessing Officer for allowing creditof Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) amount of Rs.73,488/-. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company and an assessee onthe file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3,Hyderabad. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessmentyear 1997-98 and the same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) on 30.09.1999, determiningthe total loss at Rs.1,54,02,471/-. In the said return, the petitionerclaimed credit for TDS at Rs.10,83,599/- and an amount ofRs.9,15,319/- was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on20.02.2001 requesting for rectification of the intimation under Section 154of the Act. The said petition was filed in respect of 4 TDS certificatestotalling to an amount of Rs.73,488/-. The said petition was rejected bythe Assessing Officer, by order dated 17.10.2001. Against the saidorder, a petition was filed before the first respondent under Section 264of the Act on 30.09.2002 seeking revision in respect of the TDS amountof Rs.73,488/-. The said petition was dismissed by the first respondent,by order dated 28.02.2003, against which the present Writ Petition wasfiled. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though thepetitioner deserved an amount of Rs.1,68,280/- towards TDS credit, itasked for rectification only in respect of Rs.73,488/- based on TDScertificates available and hence the first respondent should have allowedthe petition. 5. The first respondent heard the assessee, who contended that thecertificates were received after filing of the return and consequently theamount could not be claimed in the return. The assessee also filedledger extracts of the three parties in support of its contention. The firstrespondent verified the correctness of the assessee’s contention. Thefirst respondent noted that the ledger extract of “interest on ICDsAccount” was never furnished with the return and only a compositeamount of Rs.8,02,742/- was indicated as interest in Schedule 11 to thefinal accounts. The result of verification of each of the three accountswas indicated in the order and it was pointed out that the interest claimedto have been accounted as income does not match with thecorresponding gross interest indicated in the statement of TDS filed withthe return and the TDS certificates credit in respect of which the revisionwas sought under Section 264 of the Act. The first respondent observedthat there were no discrepancies in respect of principal amount lent, rateof interest and the period for which the interest is chargeable. He opinedthat it is not understandable as to how the gross amount of interestindicated in the statement of TDS and TDS certificates on one hand andthe gross amount of interest claimed to have been accounted on theother could vary. 6. The first respondent in his order also observed that though theassessee was asked to furnish copies of the assessee’s accounts asappearing in the books of accounts of the above mentioned parties so asto reconcile the discrepancies and to verify the correctness of the claim, no documents were produced. It was specifically noted that despiterepeated opportunities, the assessee could not reconcile thediscrepancies and could not substantiate that the interest correspondingto the four TDS certificates filed for grant of credit later was indeedaccounted for as its income for the previous year relevant to theassessment year 1997-98. Accordingly, the first respondent declined tointerfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 17.10.2001. 6. The first respondent in his order also observed that though theassessee was asked to furnish copies of the assessee’s accounts asappearing in the books of accounts of the above mentioned parties so asto reconcile the discrepancies and to verify the correctness of the claim, no documents were produced. It was specifically noted that despiterepeated opportunities, the assessee could not reconcile thediscrepancies and could not substantiate that the interest correspondingto the four TDS certificates filed for grant of credit later was indeedaccounted for as its income for the previous year relevant to theassessment year 1997-98. Accordingly, the first respondent declined tointerfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 17.10.2001. 7. We have also carefully gone through the order passed by the firstrespondent and the submissions made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitionerdid not file any evidence to show that there was no discrepancy withregard to the income accounted and the amount found in the TDScertificates. The first respondent has passed a reasoned order afterthoroughly going into the facts of the case and verifying the records. 7. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to issue a Writ ofMandamus as sought for. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed andis accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, standdisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, J ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J