M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., Lakhimpur-Kheri V. Income Tax Officer -TDS, Bareilly

ITA 109/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 10923714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GUPTA
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.109/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007 - 08 (3 RD QUARTER) M/S DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD., DSCL SUGAR AJBAPUR, P.O. MULLAPUR, LAKHIMPUR KHERI. PAN:AAACD0097R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI V. K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 20/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 27/12/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 IN RESPECT OF FORM NO. 26Q, THIRD QUARTER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING CHANGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT OF RS.2,80,210/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPANY, FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE COMPANY AND HAD WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE FROM THE APPELLANT BY WRONGLY REFERRING TO THE CASE LAW WHICH WAS NOT APPLICAB L E. 2. THAT CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 200 READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE ONLY IF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WOULD HAVE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE TAX WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME WHEREAS IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE 2 APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED THE TAX WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVT. AND ACCORDINGLY, NO INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE FROM THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. THAT CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MISTAKE OF NOT GIVING CREDIT TO CBDT WAS ON THE PART OF THE STATE BANK O F INDIA, WHICH BANK WAS THE COLLECTING AGENT OF THE GOVT. AND FOR THE MISTAKE OF THE BANK, THE APPELLANT COMPANY COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE AND NO INTEREST COULD BE CHARGED FROM THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT CIT(A) HAS ALSO WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 8.8.2011 WAS A SEPARATE APPEALABLE ORDER. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ISSUE OF CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST WAS ALREADY TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 9. 6.2011 AND THERE WAS NO FRESH ISSUE WHICH WAS IN THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2011 AND THE AFORESAID ORDER WAS ONLY REFERRED TO BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETION OF THE FACTS. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER, WITHDRAW AND/OR ADD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA ON 08/12/2006 BUT BY MISTAKE OF THE BANK, THE BANK CREDITED THE AMOUNT TO CBEC ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF CBDT ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD , HE SUBMITTED THAT A CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY THE BANK WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 28 & 29 IS THE LETTER ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA, TOWN HALL BRANCH, SHAHJAHANPUR ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH ALSO , IT IS CLARIFIED BY THE BANK THAT IT WAS T HE MISTAKE OF THE BANK DUE TO WHICH , THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED WRONGLY UNDER CBEC HEAD INSTEAD OF CBDT HEAD. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, FOR THE MISTAKE OF BANK, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED. 3 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT WITHIN TIME AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE MISTAKE OF T HE BANK AS PER WHICH THE BANK CREDITED THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO CBEC ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF CBDT ACCOUNT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FOR SUCH A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY BANK, WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE, THE INTEREST IMPOSED BY THE REVENUE U/S 201(1A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS USING THE AMOUNT ALTHOUGH THE BANK CREDITED THE SAME UNDER WR ONG HEAD. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ACTUAL LOSS TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR