THINKSYNQ CONSULTING LLP, CHENNAI V. ITO NCW E, CHENNAI

ITA 1530/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SASI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A MAHESH
• Section: 244A; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1530/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S THINKSYNQ CONSULTING LLP, 17 (OLD NO.9), SEETHAMMA ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : AAGFT 6098 K V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI - 600 006. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. MAHESH, FCA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.10.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -13, CHENN AI, DATED 07.03.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 14,27,208/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TAX DEDUCTE D AT SOURCE AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SHRI A. MAHESH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT M/S AIRCEL CELLULAR LIMITED ERRONEOU SLY UPLOADED TDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RENDERED ANY S ERVICE TO AIRCEL CELLULAR LIMITED AND NO FEES WAS RECEIVED FROM THEM . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, ERRONEOUSLY UP LOADED TDS STATEMENT BY AIRCEL CELLULAR LIMITED CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. SIMILARLY, A SUM OF 1,36,891/- WAS ALSO ERRONEOUSLY UPLOADED BY AIRCEL LIMITED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ERRONEOUS STATEMENT FILED BY THE AIRCEL LIMITED ALSO CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MA KING ANY ADDITION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE INCOME RETURNED AND TDS DEDUCTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE TURNOVER AS PER SERVICE TAX RETURN AND INCOME-TAX R ETURN WAS RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN RESPECT OF 3 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 STATEMENT CONTAINED IN FORM 26AS WITH REGARD TO INC OME-TAX RETURN AND THE RECONCILED STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF 14,27,208/- IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM AI RCEL CELLULAR LIMITED. SIMILARLY, A DIFFERENCE OF 1,36,891/- WAS ALSO FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED AND TDS WAS ERRONEOUSLY UPLO ADED BY AIRCEL CELLULAR LIMITED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT M/S AIRCEL CELLULAR LIMITED AND M/S AIR CEL LIMITED ERRONEOUSLY UPLOADED TDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RENDERED ANY SERVICE TO THEM. IN VIEW OF THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. ACCO RDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE IS SUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AND BRING ON RECORD THE ACTUAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PAYMENT RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE 4 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT TO TDS. 7. SHRI A. MAHESH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CRED IT OF 6,61,452/- ONLY AS AGAINST 6,73,257/- CLAIMED IN THE RETURN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, AS PER FORM 26AS AND COPIES OF TDS STATEMENT FILED IN FORM 16A, THE TDS WAS 6,73,257/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT OF 6,61,452/- ONLY. 8. WE HEARD SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THA T THE ACTUAL TDS AS PER FORM 16A AND AS PER THE RETURN FILED, WA S 6,73,257/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 6,61,452/-, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AND T HEREAFTER DECIDE 5 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVI NG A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') TO THE EXTENT OF 1,87,480/-. 10. SHRI A. MAHESH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN A REFUND OF 1,87,480/-. IN ORDER TO AVOID REFUND, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF 1,87,480/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTI ON 154 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THAT THE INTEREST WAS WRONGLY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE, THE SAM E WAS FORWARDED TO ANOTHER OFFICER AND STILL IT IS PENDING. 11. WE HEARD SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN A REFUND OF 1,87,480/- AND IN ORDER TO AVOID REFUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT IN A PROCEEDING 6 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE MISTAKE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E MATTER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS NON- GRANT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT ON THE REFUN D. 13. WE HEARD SHRI SHRI A. MAHESH, THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXA MINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE REFUND TO BE MADE AS A RESULT O F THE ASSESSMENT. IF THERE WAS ANY REFUND AND THERE WAS DELAY IN THE PAYMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBL E FOR INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE MATTER I S REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 I.T.A. NO.1530/CHNY/18 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 25 TH OCTOBER, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.