Dy. GM. MTCE, NTSR, Ambala Cantt. V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5368 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Condonation of delay
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1320 & 1321/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DY. GM, MTCE, NTSR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER( TDS), BSNL, 62. NAPIER ROAD, PANCHKULA. AMBALA CANTT. PAN: AABCB5576G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAURAV JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 23.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 16.8.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 AGAINST THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND INTEREST CHARGED U NDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DEMAND OF RS.1024160/- (RS.13,68,810/- IN ITA NO.1321/CHD/2012) CREATED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT SUMMARILY. 3. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1320/CHD/2012 IS AGAINST TH E E-TDS STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.24Q FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 (4 TH QUARTER) AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1321/CHD/2012 IS AGAINST THE E-TDS STATEMENT FILED IN FORM NO.26Q FOR THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 (4 TH QUARTER). 4. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTE R A DELAY OF 26 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS RECEIVED ON 24.9.2012 AND THE APPEALS AGAINST THE SAME WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 23.11.201 2. HOWEVER, THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER WAS TRANSFERRED TO DELHI ON 17.10. 2012 AND THE INCUMBENT OFFICER THOUGH JOINED THE DUTY ON 17.10.2 012 BUT PROCEED FOR LEAVE TO HIS HOME TOWN IN JAIPUR WHERE HE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT AND DIED ON THE SPOT. THE NEXT OFFICER JOINED THE DUTIES ON 1.1.2013. HOWEVER, MEANWHILE THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO IN TURN FILED THE APPEALS AFTER A DELAY OF 26 D AYS AND REQUEST WAS MADE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. WE CONDONE THE SAME AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS AFT ER HEARING BOTH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS REGARD. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE DEMAND IN THE CASE WAS RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE AC T ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION/NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND DIFFER ENCE WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED BY THE LEA RNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CORRECTION STATEMENT HAD BEEN FIL ED IN BOTH THE CASES AND THERE WAS MINOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF TDS THERE AFTER. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT IN RESPECT OF ONE OF DEDUCTEE THE PAN NUMBER WAS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE SYSTEM. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON VAR IOUS PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS E-TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NOS.24Q/26Q FOR 4 TH QUARTER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THERE WERE N ON-PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE E-TDS STATE MENTS FILED IN FORM NO.24Q AND DEMAND OF RS.7,25,650/- WAS RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER INTEREST WAS CHARGED UNDER SECT ION 201(1A) OF THE ACT AT RS.2,98,510/-, RESULTING IN TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.10,24,160/-. FURTHER IN FORM NO.26Q FILED FOR 4 TH QUARTER FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 SIMILAR DEFAULT WAS THERE AND DEMAND OF RS.9,77,920 /- WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT A ND FURTHER INTEREST WAS CHARGED U//S 201(1A) OF THE ACT AT RS.3,90,890/ -, RESULTING IN TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.13,68,810/-. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CORRECTION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID DEFAULTS HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE RESPECTIVE DEFAULTS. IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1320/CHD/2012 IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TDS OF RS.1,13,415/- HAD TO BE PAID ON DUE DATE I.E. 7. 8.2007 BUT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS NOT APPEARING ON OLTAS AND DEMAND OF RS .1,13,415/- WAS CREATED IN QUARTER NO.2. ON VERIFICATION IT TRANSP IRES THAT THE PAN NUMBER HAD TO BE CORRECTED AND THE SAID CORRECTION/ ADJUSTMENT WAS TO BE MADE BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY MADE AN APPLICATION. THE COPIES OF THE SAI D LETTERS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FURTHER DEMAND OF RS.6,12,236/- RELATED TO QUARTER NO.4 OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 I.E. IN RESPECT OF PAYME NT OF RS.4,79,499/- AND RS.1,32,737, AGAINST WHICH CORRECTION STATEMENT WAS FILED ON LINE ON 8.5.2013. AFTER PROCESSING, BALANCE DEMAND OF RS.2 5,210/- WAS CREATED ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST CHARGED FOR DELAY OF ONE DAY IN PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED O UT THAT THE INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND HAS BEE N WRONGLY CHARGED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS. 9. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CORRECTION STATEMENT UNDER WHICH THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF THE TAXES DUE, THEN THE CREDI T FOR SUCH CORRECTION STATEMENT MERITS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E SECOND DEFAULT IS FOR WRONG QUOTING OF PAN NUMBER WHICH CAN BE CORRECTED AND NECESSARY CREDIT FOR THE TAXES PAID TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER, INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN PAYMENT OF TAXES AT SO URCE WITHIN THE REQUISITE PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERI FY THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND RECOMPUTE THE DEMAND, I F ANY, UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND RECALCULATE THE INTEREST PAYA BLE UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 10. IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1321/CHD/201 2 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AGAINST THE DEMAND OF RS.13 ,68,810/-, CORRECTION STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 8.5.2013 AND BALANCE DEMAND OF RS.110/- HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE CREDIT OF THE CORRECTION STATEMENT AND COMPUTE THE BALANCE DEMAND /INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THI S REGARD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH JANUARY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH