Hindustan Unilever Limited(as legal successor of GlaxoSmith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited), Rajahmundry V. The Income Tax Officer(TDS Ward-1), , Rajahmundry

ITA 23/VIZ/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3554 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 194C; 201(1); 250; 194J

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्ि ू रु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.23 & 24/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10) Hindustan Unilever Ltd (As Legal Successor of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd), Industrial Estate, Dowleswaram, Rajahmundry. PAN: AACCS 0144 E Vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS, Ward-1), Rajahmundry. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms Somya Jain प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Sri Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr. AR स ु नवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/04/2022 O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : The captioned two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 21/1029884960(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 2 21/1029885492(1) dated 19/01/2021 passed U/s. 250 r.w.s 254 of the Act for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Assessing Officer dated 9/9/2009 (for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10) by holding that the assessee has opted Vivad-se- Vishwas Scheme for settling its disputes in terms of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for both the AYs 2008-09 and 2009- 10 and dismissed the appeals. Against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee has raise five identical grounds. Since the grounds raised by the assessee for both the AYs under consideration are similar and the only difference is in figures, for the sake of reference the grounds raised in ITA No. 23/Viz/2021 are extracted herein below: 1. That on the f acts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 19/01/2021 passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi U/s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is presently erroneous and bad in law. 1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on f acts and in law in dismissing the appeal No. NFAC/2007-08/10002385 [Manual Appeal Register No. CIT(A), Tirupati 317/2015-16] f iled by the appellan t against the order dated 09/09/2009 passed by the Income Tax Off icer (TDS), Rajahmundry u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act erroneously holding that the appellant has opted f or settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020. 1.2. That the CIT (A) erred on f acts in not appreciating that the appellant had not opted f or settlement of the af oresaid appeal under the VSV Act but had opted f or settlement of departmental appeal no. ITA: 32 of 2013 pending before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court f or same assessment year 2008-09 against the allowabilty of Fringe Benef it Tax. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred on f acts and in law in not considering the application f or adjournment dated 07/01/2021 e-f iled by the 3 appellant wherein the appellant had sought time to preparing submissions to be f iled in the af oresaid appeal. 1.4. That the CIT(A) erred on the f acts and in law in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on f acts and in law in not appreciating that the order passed by the AO was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law inasmuch as the same was passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. That on the f acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 2,70,716/- made by the AO on account of alleged short deduction of TDS U/s. 194C of the Act. 4. That on the f acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 58,447/- made by the AO on account of alleged short deduction of TDS U/s. 194J of the Act. 5. That on the f acts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest Rs. 84,736/- charged u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the impugned orders by wrongly holding that the assessee has opted for Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme for settling its disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for both the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in fact the assessee had not opted for VSV Scheme in respect of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) but for opted for settling the issues involved in the Departmental appeal in ITA No.32 of 2013 and ITA No.114/2015 which are pending before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court pertaining to the AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10. 4 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that in the present cases, the assessee has neither opted for settlement of disputes under VSV Scheme nor has made any such request before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the both the AYs under consideration are contrary to the pleadings of the assessee and therefore these appeals are liable to the set-aside and prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeals on merits. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR did not oppose to the submissions and prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record in the light of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) it is apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 by holding that the assessee had opted for availing the benefits of Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 which is factually not correct. Hence, in our considered view, both the instant appeals need fresh hearing by the Ld. 5 CIT(A) on merits and decide the issues involved therein in accordance with law. We therefore allow the present appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above. Needless to mention that the assessee should be provided with reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice before deciding the issues on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on the 27 th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बाऱाक ृ ष्णन) (द ु व्ि ू रु आर.एऱ रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :27.04.2022 OKK - SPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाररती/ The Assessee – Hindustan Unilever Ltd (As Legal Successor of Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd), Industrial Estate, Dowleswaram, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh - 533124. 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward-1), 4 th Floor, Siva Towers, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 6 4. आयकर आय ु क्त (अऩीऱ)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ववशधखधऩटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गधर्ा फ़धईऱ / Guard file आदेशधन ु सधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam