Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer (TDS)-II, Kanpur

ITA 150/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3992 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.150/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.150/LKW/2016 ASSTT. YEAR:2006-07 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NAUBASTA BRANCH, KANPUR. TAN:KNPSO2087B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-II), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES T O THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS AS WELL AS INTEREST LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 201(1A) THUS, RAISING A DEMAND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,05,110/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE A COMPUTERIZED ORD ER BY WAY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S 156, RAISED A DEMAND OF RS.8,05,110/- AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON APPELLANT BY SHRI MAHENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 14/09/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 /0 9 /2016 I.T.A. NO.150/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 2 THE BASIS OF FORM NO. 24Q RELATING TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF FORM-24Q AS WELL AS THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME OF EACH AND EVERY EMPLOYEE INCLUDING THE COPY OF FORM NO. 16 BEING THE CERTIFICATE ISSUE U/S 203 OF THE ACT T O EACH OF THE EMPLOYEE. BEFORE US LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUB MITTED THE RECONCILIATION AND ON THE BASIS OF THE RECONCILIATION, IT WAS VEHE MENTLY SUBMITTED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISTAKENLY CONSIDERED THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER CHAPTER VIA U/S 80C AND IF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DEMAND ON THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF THE TAX. WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CONSISTS OF 21 EMPLOYEES AND FROM THE SAID STATEMENT AS WELL AS FORM-16, WE NOTED THAT AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER-VIA , THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DEDUCTED THE TDS ON THE TAXABLE SALARY AS HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF NONE OF THE EMPLOYEE, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS ANY SHORT DEDUCTION OF THE TAX AT SOURCE. LEARNED D. R. HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN ASKED DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING TO GIVE THE DETAILS AS TO HOW THE DEMAND OF RS.8,05,110./- HAS BEEN CRE ATED, WHERE IS THE DETAIL IN RESPECT OF THESE DEMANDS, HOW MUCH IS DEM AND IN RESPECT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AND HOW MUCH IS DEMAND IN RESPECT OF INTE REST. LEARNED D. R. COULD NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE DETAIL BUT ON THE OTHER H AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE TAX WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN D EDUCTIBLE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE TAX COMES TO RS.5,76,209/-. UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FEEL THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT MAY CONSIST OF THE INT EREST LEVIED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS CREATED THE DEMAND OF RS.8,05,110/- BUT UNABLE TO GIVE THE DETAILS AS TO HOW MUCH IS THE DE MAND BEING CREATED U/S I.T.A. NO.150/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 3 201 IN RESPECT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AND IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 201(1A) BUT SINCE ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WE HAVE EXAMINED IN THE OPEN COURT ALONG WITH THE FORM NO. 16 BEFORE THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED D. R. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE 21 EMPLOYEES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER V IDE ORDER DATED 07/02/2011 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/09/2016 SD/. SD/. ( ABY T. VARKEY ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:16/09/2016 *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. R EGISTRAR