The duty of revenue officers to assist taxpayers in claiming reliefs and the just view taken by the Tribunal in line with the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the CBDT.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM Appl.37204/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 180 days re-filing the appeal]

1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.

2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 180 days.

3. Mr Rohit Tiwari, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the application.

4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

4.1. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

ITA 396/2023

5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

6. Via this appeal, challenge is laid to the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].

7. According to Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, the short issue which arises for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal could have overturned the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] and the Assessing Officer (AO), that the rectification which the petitioner sought concerning the subject income being inadvertently shown under the wrong head, could not be dealt with, under Section 154 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"].

8. The brief facts which arise for our consideration concern imposition of tax on the income received by the respondent/assessee, for services rendered to an Indian company, namely, Heidrick and Struggles India Pvt. Ltd. [in short, "HSIPL"].

9. The respondent/assessee had filed its Return of Income (ROI), wherein the income received from HSIPL on account of services rendered, i.e., Rs.2,84,40,475/-, was shown under the head `Income from Other Sources". The record shows that the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru [in short, "CPC"].

10. The record also discloses that the petitioner moved a rectification application, which did not find favour with the CPC. The CPC issued an intimation/order dated 14.06.2019, in that regard.

11. Being aggrieved, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal with the CIT(A).

11.1. The CIT(A) did not disturb the intimation/order dated 14.06.2019 issued under Section 143(1) of the Act.

12. It is in these circumstances that the respondent/assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal.

13. The Tribunal, after having perused the material on record, made the following crucial observations in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the impugned order:

"9. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. It is admitted fact that the assessee has filed its return claimed service income of Rs. 2,84,40,475/- received from Heidrickand Struggles Pvt. Ltd. as income from other sources. As per India US Tax Treaty, the service rendered by the assessee do not specify the 'make available clause of India US Tax Treaty'. It is also emerges from the record that for the Assessment Year 2018-19 a similar adjustment i.e. taxing a service receipt 40% was levied by CPC, Bangalore in the case of assessee's group company i.e. Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, Heidrick and Struggles Pvt. Ltd. UK, the said assessee has preferred an application for rectification wherein the rectification applications have been allowed by the CPC on 27/02/2020 and 30/01/2020 which are found place in the paper book Page No.300 -307 and 361 to 368. Further, it is not in dispute that as per India US Tax Treaty the impugned income is not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of Article 12 of India USA Tax Treaty.

10. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes, CBDT Circular No.14 reads as follows:

Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in eve