Darshan Lal Chawla , Allahabad V. ITO (TDS), Allahabad

ITA 105/ALLD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89804 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: UDAI RAI TIWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 102 TO 105/ALLD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 DARSHAN LAL CHAWLA, 42, S. C. BASU ROAD ALLAHABAD 211 001 PAN:AAOPC 6308 F VS. ITO TDS ALLAHABAD 211 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPO NDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UDAI RAI TIWARI REVENUE BY : SHRI UMESH PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.04.2015 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSI DERATION. GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND THE GROUND FOR THE APPEAL ITA NO. 102 READS AS UNDER:- BECAUSE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEA LS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS AND HAS WRONGL Y CONFIRMED THE DEMAND OF RS.72,280/- AS NON DEPOSIT OF TDS AND INTEREST O F RS.33,350/- THEREON WHEN THE TAX IS RIGHTLY DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED. 2. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR AFTE R MAKING TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AMOUNTS WE RE REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID REMITTANC ES TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ARE BROUGHT OR TO THE RECORDS AS EVIDENT FROM THE P APER BOOK, WHICH IS FILED BEFORE US. 3. REPLYING TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE TDS OFFICERS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT, ON FINDING SOME MINOR DISCREPANCIES, THE ITA NOS. 102 TO 105/ALLD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 2 CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE T DS OFFICERS AND PASSED IMPUGNED ORDERS UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. FURTHER BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 TO 14 OF THE PB, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE F OUR ORDERS OF THE TDS OFFICERS AND THE SAME ARE NOT DISPOSED OF TILL DATE. IT IS THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT WHEN THE TAXES DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND REMITTED TO T HE GOVERNMENTS ACCOUNT, FOR THE REASONS OF A MINOR INACCURACIES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 CANNOT BE INVOKED. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED COUNSEL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAWLA SILICA SAND TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS DATED ITA NO. 47 TO 56/ALLD/2014 . IN THIS ORDER, ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL REM ANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION FOR RECT IFICATION OF THE RELEVANT ORDERS OF THE TDS OFFICERS. IN THAT REGARD THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE ANY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BAGHAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 351/ALLD/2 013) DATED 13.12.2013. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND AS WELL A S LD. CIT(A). LD. DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. C IT(A). 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL CITED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS STAND COVERED IN PRINCIPLE AND RELEVANT ISSUES ARE REMANDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTION TO THE AOS FILE. THE PARA 4 AN D 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) ARE RELEVANT AND SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE ABOVE CHALLA NS AND COMPUTERIZED CHALLANS IN THE PAPER BOOK AND DEMONSTRATED BEFORE ME THAT THE CHALLANS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK FOR CORRECT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND CORRECT TAN MENTIONED BUT WHEN THE BANK PREPARED CO MPUTERIZED CHALLANS, THEY HAVE COMMITTED MISTAKE IN MENTIONING WRONG TAN ON THE LAST DIGIT, I.E. INSTEAD OF D, THE BANK HAS MENTIONED B. THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR WAS MENTIONED AS 2010-11 INSTEAD OF 2009-10. THE DEPART MENT HAS NOT GIVEN BENEFIT OF RS.3272/- WITHOUT ANY REASON. THE ASSESS EE OBTAINED BANK CERTIFICATE DATED 25.10.2010 (PB-10) IN WHICH THE B ANK HAS CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD CLEARLY PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE IN QUOTING CORRECT TAN AND ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THEIR CHALLANS SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE BANK FOR DEPOSITING TDS. IT APPEARS THAT WHEN BANK PREPARED THE COMPUTERIZED CHALLANS THEY COMMITTED MISTAKE IN QUOTING WRONG TA N AND WRONG ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHEN ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES W ERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD AS TO WHO HAS A CTUALLY COMMITTED THE ITA NOS. 102 TO 105/ALLD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 3 MISTAKE. IF THE DETAILS OF OLTAS AND THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE BANKER DID NOT TALLY, PROPER COURSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPT ED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO PASS A REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS O F EVIDENCE AND THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. WHEN THERE IS NO MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN PAYING TDS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUF FER ON ACCOUNT OF MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE BANKER. THE CREDIT OF THE TDS SHOU LD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE O N VERIFYING ALL THE CHALLANS AND COMPUTERIZED CHALLANS. IT IS A CASE OF GLARING IRREGULARITY AND PASSING A WRONG ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY FAULT OF ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INSTEAD OF PASSING THE ADVERSE OR DER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A DETAILED ORDER GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTUAL FACTS FROM THE CHALLANS, OTHERWISE IT W OULD AMOUNT TO SERIOUS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUS SION, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION TO PASS DETAILED REASONED ORDER AND FURTH ER DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE CHALLANS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING REASONED ORDER IN THE MATTE R. THE AO MAY VERIFY THE FACT FROM THE BANKERS ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICA TE ISSUED BY THEM ON DATED 25.10.2010, COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO STATED TO HAVE BE EN PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THUS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUND OF ALL THES E FOUR APPEALS STAND COVERED BY THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, AFT ER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, AO SHALL CARRY OUT THE RECTIFICATION AS R EQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTERS AND NULLIFY THE DEMAND RAISED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (C. N. PRASAD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALLAHABAD, DATED: 21.04.2015 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, ALLAHABAD THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, ALLAHABAD THE DR BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD.