State Bank of India, Chandigarh V. ITO (TDS-I), Chandigarh

ITA 1473/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4518 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKUR BANSAL; NEERAJ BANSAL CAS SH S K MUKHY
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 1473 & 1474/CHD/2018 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 & 2012-13 STATE BANK OF INDIA, SECTOR 7-C, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH 160019 VS. '# THE ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH $ % ./PAN NO: PTLS12706B $&/ APPELLANT ()$& /RESPONDENT *+ , - /ASSESSEE BY : SH. ANKUR BANSAL & SH. NEERAJ BANSAL, CAS SH. S.K. MUKHY, ADVOCATE , - / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR . / , +0% /DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2019 12! , +0% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.05.2019 / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.09.2018 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)-1, CHANDIGARH. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 1473 & 1474-C-2018- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE JURI SDICTION OF THE AO WHEREAS THE REMAND REPORT RECEIVED STATED OT HERWISE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE ON MERITS WHEREAS THE ONLY POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS JURI SDICTION OF THE AO. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS THE DEMAND MADE OUT OF IMP UGNED ORDER BE SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D, MODIFY OR FORGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION O F HON'BLE BENCH OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE OR A T THE TIME OF HEARING/FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT EARLIER THIS CASE WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8. 2017 IN ITA NOS. 853 & 854/CHD/2016 AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ADDITION AL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE RELATING TO THE JURISDICTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE SAME BY OBSERVING IN PAR A 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 3.3 ON GOING THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLA NT, COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE INSTRUCTI ON, IT EMERGES THAT THE APPELLANT IS RELYING ON BOARD INST RUCTIONS ITA NO. 1473 & 1474-C-2018- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH 3 WHICH ARE ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SUPER VISORY OFFICERS TO REDISTRIBUTE UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WORK LOAD BETWEEN ACITS AND ITOS. THIS FACT CLEARLY EMERGES F ROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSTRUCTION QUOTED ABOVE. THE APPEL LANT CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT OF TAX EVASION BY HIDING BEHIND THIS I NSTRUCTION. FURTHERMORE, THE INSTRUCTION CLEARLY STATES 'INCOME DECLARED', WHICH IMPLIES INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSES WHILE FILING ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. AS HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN HIS COMMENTS, THE TDS JURISDICTION DEPENDS UPON THE TAX DEDUCTED EACH YEAR AND IS A DYNAMIC JURISDICTION AN D IT IS BEING SHIFTED FROM ITO/ACIT ALMOST ON A REGU LAR BASIS. AS PER THE TABLE OF JURISDICTION SUBMISSIO N, IT IS CLEAR THAT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND ASS ESSMENT, THE JURISDICTION WAS VESTED WITH THE ITO. LATE R ON THE JURISDICTION GOT TRANSFERRED TO THE ACIT AND THEN A GAIN BACK TO THE 1TO. IN FACT IN PERIOD BETWEEN 2008 TO 2015, THE JURISDICTION CHANGED FREQUENTLY BETWEEN ITO AND ACI T. THIS TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE CIT(TDS) AND DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL G ROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE ON MERITS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CO PY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.8.2018 WRITTEN TO THE LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDI GARH BY THE DCIT (TDS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS COPY O F THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 1473 & 1474-C-2018- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH 4 HAD NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID LETTER WHI CH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 201( 1) / 201 (1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS NOT H AVING THE JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) ALTHOUGH ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT H AD NOT CONSIDERED THE SAID REMAND REPORT FURNISHED TO HIM VIDE LETTER DAT ED 21.8.2018. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, NO WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR ANY SUCH REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO HIM, SO IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE GOT A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DCIT (TDS) CHAN DIGARH HAD WRITTEN A LETTER DATED 21.8.2018 TO THE LD. CIT(A)-1, (CHAN DIGARH) WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL NO. 1/10180/17-18 WHICH WAS PENDING B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO REFERENC E HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SAID LETTER / REMAND REPORT. WE, THEREFORE, CON SIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ITA NO. 1473 & 1474-C-2018- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH 5 THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED THE SAME AFRESH IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW BY CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 21.8.2108 FU RNISHED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG BEFORE THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.05.2019) SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDEN T DATED : 21.05.2019 .. 3 , (+45 65!+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$& / THE RESPONDENT 3. . 7+ / CIT 4. . 7+ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 58 (+9 , 0 9 , :;<= / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. < >/ / GUARD FILE 3 . / BY ORDER, ? / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR