ITO (TDS), Moradabad V. Haq Brothers, Moradabad

ITA 1768/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6593 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM LAL MEENA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1768/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) VS. M/S HAQ BROTHERS, MORADABAD (UP) 45, BHATTI STREET, MANDI CHOWK, MORADABAD (PAN: LKNH05065E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAM LAL MEENA, CIT( DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 01-03-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 01-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2013 OF LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1- THE LD. CIT (APPEAL), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FACT S AND LAW BY ACCEPTING NEW EVIDENCE _ FROM THE DEDUCTOR WITHOUT ALLOWING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN TERMS OF RULE 46A (3) OF T HE IT RULES1962. THE DEDUCTOR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT HE HAS D EDUCTED AND PAID THE DUE TAX AND THAT SHORT DEDUCTION/ NON-PAYMENT IS DU E TO MISMATCH. THIS FACT WAS NOT NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO NO R IT WAS REFLECTED ON THE ITD SYSTEM WHEN THIS ORDER U/S 201(1)/201 (LA) WAS PASSED. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM BY CALLING FOR NECESSARY DOCUME NTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND C HARGE INTEREST ON LATE DEPOSIT IF ANY. 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 ITA NO. 1768/DEL/2014 2 PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS ARE FULLY CENTRALIZED AT CPC(TDS) VAISHALI GHAZIABAD AND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORD ER. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE DEDUCTOR IS TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMENTS O N-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 UND ERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF RECTIFICATION/CORRECTIONS LAID DOWN BY C PC(TDS). NO PROOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT; THE NECESSARY CORRECTION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED WIT H CRC(TDS). BEING A PERSON FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND ACTUAL PROCESSES LAID DOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WHETHER D IRECTIONS ISSUED BY HIM OR EXECUTABLE OR NOT. 4- BY DOING SO IN 1,2,3 ABOVE, THE CIT(A) HAS MECHA NICALLY DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL, WHILE NO IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS DIRECTIO NS ARE POSSIBLE AT A.O. (TDS) END. IN CASE OF MISMATCH, THE REMEDY LIES IN FILING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WHICH ARE AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSED BY THE CRC (TDS). TILL CORRECTION STATEMENT IS PROCESSED, THE AO(TDS) ORDE R 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. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. ITA NO. 1768/DEL/2014 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY L IMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/- 2 BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE P RESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALS O OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID ITA NO. 1768/DEL/2014 4 INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/3/2016. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 01/3/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1768/DEL/2014 5