The DCIT, (TDS), Baroda V. Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd.,

ITA 2104/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7870 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADH U MITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND (APPELLANT) VS ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. ANAND SOJITRA ROAD, V.V. NAGAR, ANAND - 388120 PAN: AAACE4644D (RESPONDENT) THE D CIT (TDS) , ROOM NO. 5, GR. FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE , BARODA (APPELLANT) VS ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. ANAND SOJITRA ROAD, V.V. NAGAR, ANAND - 388120 PAN: AAACE4644D (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI LALIT P. JAIN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 08 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 - 09 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 , ARI SE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - IV, BARODA DATED 14 - 06 - 2 013 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHOR T THE ACT . I T A NO . 2251 / A HD/20 1 3 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 ITA NO. 2104 /AHD/20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,27,30,166/ - MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT S MADE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO CLEARING HOUSE AGENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED ON THE ABOVE PAYMENTS ALTHOUGH THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENTS ARE SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT . 3. T HE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PERTAINED TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 42730166/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO CLEAR ING HOUSE AGENT WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX 4. THE FACT IN BRIEF OF THE C A SE IS THAT THE ASSESSE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 87 , 83 ,28, 206 ON 30 TH SEP, 2008. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY . A T T HE TIME OF ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 4 , 27 , 30166/ - TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT FOR AVAILING THE SERVICES OF EXECUTING IMPORT AND EXPORT IN T H E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT T HE CLEANING AND FORWARDING A GENTS HAVE MADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE AND RAISE D S EPARATE BILLS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AS A CLEARING HOUSE AGENT. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSE HAS MADE REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO ELEMEN T OF COMMISSION, THEREFORE , NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE AND STATED THAT WHATEVER PAYMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE TO THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY , THE TDS SHOULD HA V E BEEN DEDUCTED . THEREFORE , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF RS . 4 , 27 , 30 , 166/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 3 5 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - THE HON BLE ITAT D BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN ITS ABOVE ORDER HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. BY DIRECTIN G THAT THE EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD. SHALL BRING ON RECORD THE RELEVANT BILLS RAISED BY THE C & F AGENT AND IT HAS TO BE SHOWN WITH EXACT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY EACH AGENT WAS REIMBURSED BY THE APPELLANT AND BILLS WERE SEPARATELY RAISED BY THE C & F AGENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EACH EXPENDI TURE AND FOR SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE TO THEM. THE HON'BLE ITAT 'D' BENCH, AHMEDABAD HAS DIRECTED THE AO THAT IF THE ARJGEJIANT J,E.EIMCO - ELECON (INDIA) LTD. IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THESE TWO INGREDIENTS , THEN SECT ION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE. FROM THIS DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT 'D' BENCH, AHMEDABAD IT CAN BE SAID THAT IN CASE IF EXACT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY CHA HAS BEEN REIMBURSED BY THE APPELLA NT AND BILLS ARE SEPARATELY RAISED BY THE CHA FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EACH EXPENDITURE AND FOR SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE TO THEM AND IF IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT THEN, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSE MENT OF EXP ENDITURE. AS STATED ABOVE THE DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND IN HIS ABOVE REPORT DATED 06 - 06 - 2013 HAS STATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNTS IN RESPECT OF BILLS RAIS ED BY C & F AGENTS DURING THE AY 2008 - 09 PURELY FOR REIMBURS EMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES IS OF RS. 4,27,30,1 66/ - AND THERE IS NO ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME IN SUCH REIMBURSEMENT TRANSACTIONS. SINCE, THE AO ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION OF RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BILLS RAISED BY THE CHA IN RESPECT OF AMOU NT OF RS 4,27,30,166/ - ARE PURELY FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND ACTUAL EXPENSES ONLY AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, 'D' BENCH, AHMEDABAD AS GIVEN IN ITS ABOVE REFERRED ORDER DATED 21 - 09 - 2012 IN THE CASE OF EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD ., IT IS HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT O F THIS REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT OF RS. 4,27,30,166/ - . CONSIDERING THIS FACT, I THEREFORE, DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 4,27,30,166/ - AS MADE BY THE AO U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. THUS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT MADE TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS THE BILLS RAISED BY THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT WERE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . WE OBSERVE THAT THESE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME INVOLVED IN SUCH REIMBURSEMENT TRANSACTION . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PRAYAS INDIA LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT ITA NO. 2674/AHD/2011. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 4 OF HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT - 1 VS. CONSUMER MARKETING PVT. LTD. TAX APPEAL NO. 6 46 OF 2015 DATED 21/09/2017. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECI SI ON OF THE CO - ORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAYAS INDIA LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT ITA NO. 2674/AHD/2011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAW. THE SO LE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT OF TDS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE PAID GROSS AMOUNT OF RS. 16,56,989/ - TO M/S ETPL, ITS CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT. IT DEDUCTED TDS QUA A SUM OF RS. 5,23,855/ - . THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN QUESTION OF RS. 11,33,134/ - WAS ST ATED TO BE REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME HAD TO BE SUBJECTED TO TDS U/S. 194C OF THE ACT EVEN IN CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT. THE CIT(A) ADOPTS A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT T O THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR HOLDING THAT NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN CASE OF REIMBURSEMENTS IN QUESTION SINCE THERE IS NO INCOME ELEMENT EMBEDDED THEREIN. HOWEVER, HE HOLDS THAT THE ASSESSEE S SHIP LINE BILLS ETC. ARE TO BE SUBJEC TED TO TDS. WE FIND THIS LATTER OBSERVATION TO BE NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE S STAND THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT SUCH SHIPPING PAYMENTS DO NOT REQUIRE TDS DEDUCTION AS PER THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 723 DATED 01 - 09 - 1995 EXCLUDING OPERATION OF THE RELEVANT TDS P ROVISIONS. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAIL TO REBUT THIS CONTENTION ON FACTS AND LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ASSESSEE S SHIPPING LINE BILLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS DEDUCTION. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT A CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA 2825/AHD/2010 DECIDED ON 29 - 04 - 2014 HOLDS SIMILAR REIMBURSEMENTS MADE TO BE VERY PAYEE AS NOT COVERED BY TDS PROVISIONS. THE REVENUE FAILS TO POI NT OUT ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS. WE OBSERVE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) S ACTION IN PART IS NOT LIABLE TO BE UPHELD ON BOTH COUNTS I.E. MERITS AS WELL AS JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY. THE ASSESSEE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND SUCCEE DS 7 . THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT - 1 VS. CONSUMER MARKETING PVT. LTD. TAX APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2015 DATED 21/09/2017 HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE REIMBURSEMENT BILLS WERE SEPARATELY RAISED THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCT TDS AND DIS ALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT BILL WHICH WERE SEPA RA TELY RAISED AS NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE IN RESPECT T HEREOF. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y ERROR IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2104 /AHD/2014 8 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 5 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE OR DER PASSED U/S.20 1(1) & INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201 ( 1A ) OF THE O F ACT OF RS. 22,50,084/ - & RS. 19,81,420/ - RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE A S SESSEE DEFAULTED IN DEPOSITION O F T HE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE THERE FORE, T HE LIMITATION IMPOSED IN SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 201 DOES NOT APPLY IN T HIS CASE. 9 . THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 201(1) AND INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT .T HE BRIEF FACT IS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 201(1)/201(IA) OF THE ACT ON 1 ST MARCH, 2013 STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22 , 50 , 080/ - , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE WAS DECLARED TO BE A ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RES PECT OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO LEVIED INTEREST O F RS . 19 , 81 , 420/ - U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR SHORT PAYMENT OF TAX. 10 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PART O F THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 5.2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. '3' IS CONCERN ED, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS THAT NO ORDER U/S. 201 FO R THE F.Y. 2006 - 07 COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED AFTER 31/03/2011 IS CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLARING THE APPELLANT AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR AMOUNT DEDUCTED BUT NOT PAI D IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AS BEING TIME BARRED. 5.2.1 BUT SO FAR AS ORDER U/S. 201(1A), VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF IDS ALLEGEDLY NOT PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, IS CONCERNED, NO TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE IT ACT, 1961. HENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED SUCH INTEREST ON THE APPELLANT. 5.2.2 SO FAR AS GROUND NO. '2' IS CONCERNED, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS SEEN THAT THE TDS/TCS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE THE CHALLANS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE SAME AS THE A MOUNTS MENTIONED AS SHORT PAYMEN TS IN THIS ORDER. DURING THE COURS E OF THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE CHALLANS OF BANKS THROUGH WHICH TDS WAS DEPOSITED BY IT. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT BY MISTAKE ONE CIN NO. WAS MENTIONED AGAINST THE AMOUNTS PAID BY TWO DIFFERENT CHALLANS. DUE TO THIS MISTAKE THE CREDIT FOR SUCH PAYMENTS WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHILE PROCESSING OF ITS TDS STATEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 91,332/ - PAID VIDE CHALLAN CIN NO. 00025 AND RS. 2,32,147/ - PAID VIDE CHALLAN CIN NO. 00021 WERE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3,23,479/ - WAS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN AGAINST CHALLAN SERIAL NO. 21. THE ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER ALSO GIVE LIST OF CHALLANS REPORTED IN I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 6 RETURN BUT NOT FOUND IN OLTAS. THE REASON FOR SUCH DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN E XPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION. NOW THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT ABLE TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMENT AS THE ONLINE SYSTEM IS NOT ALLOWING THE PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT FOR F.Y. 2006 - 07. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT H AS RIGHTLY FILED A RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 5.2.3. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY FROM THE BANKS AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING DEPOSITED TDS AMOUNTS THROUGH CHALLANS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CORRECT OR NOT. - ON SUCH CHALLANS BEING FOUND CORRECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL PROVIDE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT BY PASSING ORDER IN WRITING AS PER AS A RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11 . WE HAVE HEA RD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S R A IS E D A DEMAND OF RS . 42 , 31 , 504 FOR NON - PAYMENT OF TDS ( RS. 2,25 0 080 AMOUNT DEDUCTED BUT NOT PAID + RS. 1981420 INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT) FOR THIRD QUARTER OF F.Y. 2006 - 07. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ACTUAL LY TDS WAS PAID AND THERE WAS NO CAS E OF NON - PAYMENT OF TDS BECAUSE ON PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT IT WAS WRONGLY SHOWN AS NON - PAYMENT OF T D S . T HIS MISTAKE HAS BEEN OCCURRED DUE TO MI SMATCH OF CIN NUMBER REGISTER E D IN T H E OLT A S STATEMENT AND THE CIN NUMBER MENTIONED BY THE A SSESSEE. T HE REVISED TDS STATEMENT AFTER RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE IN CIN NUMBER COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL REASON AS THE ONLINE SYSTEM WAS NOT ALLOWING THE PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 . THE REFORE , THE ASSESSEE HAS SIM ULT ANEOUSLY APPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ANNEXURE TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDE S LIST OF CHALLAN S REPORTED IN THE RETURN BUT NOT FOUND IN THE OLT AS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY FROM THE BANK AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT THROUGH CHALLAN ARE CORRECT OR NOT. D URING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE COPY OF APPEAL GIVING EFFECT TO THE CIT(A) S ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 18 TH JUNE, 2014 WAS FURNISHED AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D GRANTED REDUCTION AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT AS DIRECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A). LOOKING TO THE I.T.A NO. 2251 /AHD/20 13 & 2104 /AHD/2014 A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 PAGE NO . ACIT VS. ELECON ENGIN EERING CO. LTD. 7 ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE , THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 17 - 09 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 17 /09 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CI T 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,