M/s. Teva API India Ltd., New Delhi V. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

ITA 204/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70555 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANONEET DALAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.204, 205, 206 & 207/LKW/2013 A.YS. 2009-10(Q1), 2009-10(Q4), 2008-09(Q4) & 2009- 10(Q4) RESPECTIVELY M/S. TEVA API INDIA LIMITED, VS. JOINT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX- M-34, SAKET, TDS, BAREILLY. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AACCR 0679 R & TAN: LKNR 05176 D) TAN: LKNR05503B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANONEET DALAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2013 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS READ AS UNDER :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A ND IN LAW; 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT(A)) IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2 ITA NOS.204, 205, 206 & 207/LKW/2013 A.YS.: 2009-10(Q1), 2009-10(Q4), 2008-09(Q4), 2009-10(Q4) 2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED A NOTICE TO TH E APPELLANT REGARDING ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER AND PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECT ION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE BAREILLY JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL MEMO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SIGNED THE APPEAL MEMO AT DESIGNATED PLACE ABOVE TH E FORM OF VERIFICATION. 5) THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED THE TAXES TO THE EXCHEQUER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LEVIED INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.204, 205 & 206/LKW/2013 3. IN THESE CASES THE E-TDS STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ANALYZED AND DEFAULTS WERE NOTICED. TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DE FAULT, DEMANDS WERE RAISED. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAD BEEN DULY DEPOSITED. RESPECTIVE CHALLANS AND AMOUN T INVOLVED WERE DULY EXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE APPEALS W ERE DEFECTIVE AS VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT T HE TDS PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND HAS BEEN CLAI MED BY ONE CHALLAN AND THIS HAS RESULTED INTO MISMATCH. THE LD.CIT(A) NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED 3 ITA NOS.204, 205, 206 & 207/LKW/2013 A.YS.: 2009-10(Q1), 2009-10(Q4), 2008-09(Q4), 2009-10(Q4) ANY STATEMENT. THE LD. CITA(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE APPEAL MEMO WAS DEFECTIVE AS IT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED. HENCE, APPEALS WERE DISM ISSED AS DEFECTIVE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED BY A S INGLE CHALLAN AND HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATELY MENTIONED IN THE TDS RETURNS. FURTHE R IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT BY NOTIFICATION NO.11 OF 2013 DATED 19.02.2013 FROM F. Y. 2013-14 AMOUNTS CAN BE DEPOSITED ELECTRONICALLY BY SINGLE CHALLAN. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DEFECT IN VERIFICATION OF APPEAL IS A CURABLE DEFECT. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE MISMATCH DEFECT CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED BY THE A.O. A ND NO CORRECTION IS REQUIRED AT ASSESSEES END. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS MAY BE REMIT TED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CANV AS THE APPEALS. 6. UPON CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE COGENT. WE REMIT THE ISSUE IN THESE A PPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD THAT VERIFICATION OF APPEAL IS CURABLE DEFE CT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD. CI T(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . 4 ITA NOS.204, 205, 206 & 207/LKW/2013 A.YS.: 2009-10(Q1), 2009-10(Q4), 2008-09(Q4), 2009-10(Q4) ITA NO.207/LKW/2013 7. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2009-10 FOR 4 TH QUARTER. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS INFRUCTUOUS IN AS MUCH AS IN ITA NO.205/LKW/2013 TH E SAME APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, ITA NOS.204, 205, 206/LKW/2013 AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO.207/LKW/2013 STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.09.2013) SD/- SD/- (S.K. YADAV) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 18.09.2013 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. D.R. ASSISTANT REGISTER