Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ambala Cantt. V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77061 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDESH KANT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1233 TO 1236/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. THE I.T.O (TD S), AMBALA CANTT. PANCHKULA PAN NO. AABCB5576G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. HARDESH KANT RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 28/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2014 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE NOTED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A), ROHTAK RELATIN G TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE HENCE THESE ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL THROUGH THIS COMMO N ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 1233/CHD/2012. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED DEFAULT RELATING TO NON PAYMENT OF TDS AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NON / LOW DEDUC TION OF TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE THEREFORE, DE CLARED THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSE E TO PAY THE TOTAL TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 25,53,270/- FOR THE QUARTER NO. 4 OF FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 2007-08 INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST. 2 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) . 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WA S SOME MISTAKE IN QUOTING THE PAN NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE D EMAND HAS ARISEN DUE TO MISQUOTING OF PAN NUMBER. 6. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF NECESSARY CORRECTIONS ONLY, HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS, HE DISMISSED THE AP PEALS HOLDING THAT NO LEGAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED. IN OUR VIEW, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT NO LEGAL ISSUE W AS INVOLVED WAS NOT CORRECT. EVEN IF NO LEGAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED, IT W AS INCUMBENT UPON THE LD. CIT(A) TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE NECESSARY RECORD / DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTE R IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL SUBMIT THE NECESSARY DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION WILL CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, ALL THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29/04/20 14. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SANJAY GARG ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3