Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Lakhimpur-Kheri V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (T.D.S), Lucknow

ITA 232/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 23223714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.232/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-2011 (26Q2) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, SHARDA NAGAR, LAKHIMPUR KHERI. TAN:LKNEO5212E VS. JT.C.I.T. (TDS), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.233/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-2011 (26Q3) JT.C.I.T. (TDS), LUCKNOW. VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, SHARDA NAGAR, LAKHIMPUR KHERI. TAN:LKNEO5212E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILL Y DATED 20/02/2015 IN RESPECT OF DEMANDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN RESPECT OF FORM NO. 26Q FOR QUARTER NO. 2 AND QUARTER NO. 3. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. N O.232/LKW/2015 ARE AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY SHRI SHUBHAM RASTOGI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 05/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/01/2016 2 1. THE LD. C. I. T. (APPEALS), BAREILLY ERRED ON F ACTS AND IN LAW IN DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL ON EX-PARTE BASI S WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE REASON S, COMPLIANCE OF THE CASE COULD NOT BE DONE. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS), ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF JCIT- TDS, IMPOSING THE PEN ALTY OF RS.46,600/- U/S 272A(2)(K)/274 READ WITH SECTION 200(3) OF I.T. ACT. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS), DID NOT APPRECIATED TH AT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FURNISHING OF T.D.S. RETURN OF THE RELEVAN T QUARTER. 4. THAT THE PENALTY OF RS. 46,600/- UPHELD IS AGAIN ST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS SAY ON THE REASONS RELIED UPON BY HIM. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. N O.233/LKW/2015 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. C. I. T. (APPEALS), BAREILLY, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL ON EX-PARTE BASI S WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE REASON S, COMPLIANCE OF THE CASE COULD NOT BE DONE. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS), ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF JC1T- TDS, IMPOSING THE PEN ALTY OF RS. 53,000/- U/S 272A(2)(K)/274 READ WITH SECTIO N 200(3) OF I.T. ACT. 3. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS,) DID NOT APPRECIATE THA T DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FURNISHING OF T.D.S. RETURN OF THE RELEVAN T QUARTER. 4. THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.53,000/- UPHELD IS AGAINS T THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D WITHOUT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS SAY ON THE REASONS RELIED UPON BY HIM. 3 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE BEFORE CIT(A) DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE REASONS AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SU BMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY CIT(A) AND THEREFORE , NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT DEFINITELY, VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY CIT(A) TO TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE BUT STILL IN T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT PROPER T O PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A) IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THIS ROUND, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE PROPER COMPLIANCE WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT E XCEPT UNDER UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:15/01/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASST T. REGISTRAR