Manali Textiles, Ahmedabad V. ACIT (CPC) TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 1899/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5216 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANTHAN S KHOKHANI
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1899 & 1900/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 & 2014-15) MANALI TEXTILES 145, MAZENINE FLOOR, NEW CLOTH MARKET, SARANGPUR, AHMEDABAD - 380022 / VS. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, U. P., GHAZIABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AARFM8671J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANTHAN S. KHOKHANI, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/02/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/02/2020 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS BOTH DATED 07.06.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) 8, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L EARNED ACIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15; RESPECTIVEL Y. SINCE, BOTH THE APPEALS RELATE TO SAME ISSUE, THESE ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS. 1899 & 1900/AHD/2018 MANALI TEXTILES VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE IS THIS THAT IT IS RATHER A CASE OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION, SINCE, THE DEDUCTEE HAS PAID COMP LETE TAX ON RETURNED INCOME WHICH INCLUDES THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING OF BED-SHEETS AND RELATED ITEMS A ND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT FOR JOB WORK UNDERTAKEN BY IT ONE M/S. DANOO TEXTIL ES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE @0.80% UP TO THE LIMIT PROVIDE D IN THE LOWER DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE SAID M/S. DANOO TEXTILES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, INADVERTENTLY DEDUCTED TAX AT SUCH LOWER RATE EVEN ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS MAD E EXCEEDING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AND THEREFORE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE TREATING THE ASS ESSEE AS ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH SHORT DEDUCTED AMOUNT. IT APPEARS FROM THE RE CORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE DEDUCTEE HAS ALR EADY SHOWN THE SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND PAID THE TAX DUE THEREON AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT FURTHER DEDUCTION OF TAX BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. EVEN THE SAID M/S . DANOO TEXTILES WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE SAID CREDIT, SINCE, THE TIME FOR FILING THE REV ISED RETURN HAS ALSO EXPIRED. HOWEVER, SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TENABLE BY THE A O. HE, ULTIMATELY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL, PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER S.201(1) OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT WHEN THE SAID FACT WAS PRESENTED BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFICAT E IN FORM NO.26A FROM A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT SAID M/S. DANOO TEXTILES INCLUDED THE IMPUGNED SUM IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD PAID TAX THEREON. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME AT THAT MATERIAL POINT OF TIME AND ASKED F OR ADJOURNMENT. ULTIMATELY DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFUSED TO ACCE PT SUCH PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE US THE SAID FORM NO.26A I SSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND HENCE, WE FIND FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE TO GRANT A F URTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ITA NOS. 1899 & 1900/AHD/2018 MANALI TEXTILES VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3 ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) SINCE THE SAID DOCUM ENT BEING FORM NO.26A IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN ORDER TO MAKE JUSTIFIABLE CONCLUSI ON WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSEE-IN- DEFAULT OR NOT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION UPON HIM TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FORM NO. 26A ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN RESPECT TO TH E TAX SOUGHT TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE PAYEE BEING M/S. DANOO TEXTILES AND ALSO TO GIVE OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER EVIDENCE W HICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER. LEARNED AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO PROCEED IN TERMS WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEEDINGS WITH REASONED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES BOTH APPEALS ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20/0 2/2020 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/02/2020 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $%& ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. '() / THE CIT(A)- 5. *+, --%&. %&#. /01$1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ,23 4 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) $%& / ITAT, AHMEDABAD