The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bareilly V. Gandhi Faizam College, Shahjahanpur

ITA 173/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 17323714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.173/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BAREILLY. VS. GANDHI FAIZAM COLLEGE, SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SHUBHAM RASTOGI, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 03/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 /08/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 04/12/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 IN RESPECT OF FORM NO.24Q FOR 4 TH QUARTER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL), BAREIL LY HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY ACCEPTING NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE DEDUCTOR WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN TERMS OF RULE 46A (3) OF THE IT RULES 1 962. THE DEDUCTOR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT HE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE DUE TAX A ND THAT SHORT DEDUCTION/ NON - PAYMENT IS DUE TO MISMATCH. THIS FACT WAS NOT NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO NOR IT WAS REFLECTED ON THE ITD SYSTEM WHEN THIS ORDER U/S 201(1)/201 (1A) WAS PASSED. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM BY CALLING FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND CHARGE INTEREST ON LATE DEPOSIT IF ANY. 2 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CALL FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS ARE FULLY CENTRALIZED AT CPC (TDS) VAISHALI GHAZIABAD AND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE DEDUCTOR IS TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMENT S ON - LINE AND GET THE DEMAND REDUCED THROUGH CPC(TDS). 3. THE CIT(A) BEING A QUASI - JUDICIAL BODY HAS ERRED FURTHER IN DIRECTING THE AO(TDS) TO CARRY OUT RECTIFICATIONS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF RECTIFICATION/CORRECTIONS LAID DOWN BY CPC(TDS). N O PROOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE NECESSARY CORRECTION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH CPC(TDS). BEING A PERSON FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND ACTUAL PROCESSES LAID DOWN BY THE DEPARTME NT AND WHETHER DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HIM OR EXECUTABLE OR NOT . 4. BY DOING SO IN 1,2,3 ABOVE, THE CIT(A) HAS MECHANICALLY DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL, WHILE NO IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS DIRECTIONS ARE POSSIBLE AT A.O. (TDS) END. IN CASE OF MISMATCH, THE REMEDY LIE S IN FILING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WHICH ARE AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSED BY THE CPC (TDS). TILL CORRECTION STATEMENT IS PROCESSED, THE AO(TDS) ORDER STANDS, AND MAY NOT BE CANCELLED. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND/ADD ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT OUT OF THE ALLEGED NON DEPOSIT OF RS.4,38,457/ - , CHALLANS OF RS.2,93,057/ - ARE REFLECTING IN THE OLTAS PROPERLY AND ONLY ONE CHALLAN OF RS.1,45,400/ - IS NOT REFLECTED IN OLTAS BECAUSE CHALLAN IS NOT YET 3 DEPOSITED BY THE BANK DESPITE SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK IN THIS REGARD. THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) TO CALL FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DIRECTED HIM TO CHARGE DUE INTEREST, IF ANY, ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS AS PER LAW. SINCE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PAYMENT OF TDS AND ALSO DIRECTED TO CHARGE INTEREST AS PER L AW, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07 /08/2014. *C.L.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. REGISTRAR