The ITO, TDS-1, Ahmedabad V. Chitra Gupta, Ahmedabad

ITA 1565/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94397 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA HARDASANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC C BE NCH (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T. A. N O. 1565 /AHD/2015 (ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-I, AHMEDABAD V/S CHITRA GUPTA, E-24, APPARTMENT, GULBAI TEKRA, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACVPG1174C APPELLANT BY : SMT. ANITA HARDASANI, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 11-09-201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -09-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-4, AHMEDABAD DATED 03.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO 1565 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. IN THIS CASE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE N OR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BUT HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL , EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. IN THIS CASE ITO (TDS), ON PERUSING THE E-TDS STATE MENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF TDS AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE ON FEW OCCASIONS. HE ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE TOTAL INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF TDS AT RS. 16,720/- AND ON 23 RD JULY, 2013 PASSED ORDER U/S. 201(1)/ 201(1A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2015 GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDI NG AS UNDER:- 5.I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPE LLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON 31.03.2008 AND PAID THE SA ME ALONG WITH INTEREST ON 11-05-2008 AND AS PER GENERAL CLAUSE ACT, THE DATE FROM IS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF PERIOD FOR CHARGING I NTEREST. THE AO HAS LEVIED INTEREST FOR THREE MONTHS. SECTION 201(1 A) CLEARLY STATES, IF A PERSON AFTER DEDUCTING TAX FAILS TO PAY THE TAX IT SHALL BE LIAB LE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCT ED TO THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX IS ACTUALLY PAID. THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE DAY ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED IS TO BE EXCLUDED OR NOT. TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2006 IN CASE OF M/S ECO N ANTRI LTD. VS. RON INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR., IN ORDER DATED 26-08-2013 H AS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, THE PERIOD HAS TO BE RECKONED BY EXCLUDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE; THE CONTEN TION OF APPELLANT THAT PERIOD ITA NO 1565 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 OF DEFAULT IS TO BE CALCULATED FROM DUE DATE I.E. 3 0-04-2013 IS INCORRECT. THE PERIOD IS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTI ON AND NOT DUE DATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED NOT TO CHARGE INTER EST FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2013 AND INTEREST IS TO BE LEVIED FOR ONLY 2 MONTHS . THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NUMBER OF MONTH HAS TO BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTION AND THE PERIOD EXCEEDING 30 DAYS IS TO BE TREATED AS ONE MONTH INSTEAD OF THE METHOD COUNTED BY THE A.O. AS PER THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE, IN THE LIGH T OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY HIM DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AFTER FOLLOWIN G THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW. 6. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ECON ANTRI LTD. VS. RON INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. HAS NOTED THAT THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT IS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCT ION AND NOT FROM THE DUE DATE OF DEDUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST HAS TO BE CHARGED FOR ONLY 2 MONTHS AS AGAINST THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE A.O F OR 3 MONTHS. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO C ONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND OF REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 1565 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-09 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 09 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD