Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,TDS-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 2328/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9312 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2328-2329/AHD/2010 [ASSTT. YEARS: 2003-04 & 2004-05] DATE OF HEARING:15.10.10 DRAFTED: 18.10 & 8.11.1 0 GUJARAT CRICKED ASSOCIATION -VS- INCOME TAX OFFICE R, TDS-4 2 ND FLOOR, AKSHAR ARCADE, 2 ND FLOOR, AMRUT JAYANTI NR. NAVRANGPURA FIRE STATION, BHAVAN, NAVJEEVAN PR EMISES, NR. VIJAY CROSS ROAD, AHMEDABAD OFF, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAAAG1205C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MAHUL K PATEL, AR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEALS NO . CIT(A)-6/S.K.ITO.WD-4/02- 03/10-11 DATED 31-05-2010. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRA MED BY ITO, TDS-4, RANGE, AHMEDABAD U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 16-0 3-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003- 04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, AH MEDABAD CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING TDS U/S .194C OF THE ACT CONSEQUENTLY RAISING DEMAND U/S. 201(1), ALSO CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE YEAR S, WHICH ARE EXACTLY ITA NO.2328-29/AHD/10 A.Y. 03-04 & 04-05 GCA V. ITO TDS-4, ABD PAGE 2 IDENTICALLY WORDED EXCEPT THE QUANTUM. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS AS RAISED IN ITA NO.2328/AHD/2010 AS UNDER:- (1) THE LEARNED. ITO AND HOBBLE CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDERS FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE U/S.194C AND RAISING THE DEMAND OF RS.81,984/-. (2) THE LEARNED ITO AND HONBLE CIT(A) HAVE ERRED I N PASSING THE ORDERS WHICH ARE NOT THE SPEAKING ORDERS AND HAVE ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAV E ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. (3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THE POINT OF TIME BARRED ORDER VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE APPELLANT. (4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI M.K. PATEL STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S. 201(1) AND LEVIED TDS BY TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT TOWARDS GUARANTEE MONEY PAID TO BOARD CRICKET CONTROL INDIA BY THE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT THE AO VIDE COMMON ORD ER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARD TO TIME BARING ACTION OF THE AO. HE REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER:- THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACC EPTABLE. AS THE GUARANTEE MONEY SO PAID BY BCCI TO GCA IS COVERED U/S.194C OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT U/S. 201(1) AND 201( 1A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, AN ORDER U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A) IS PASS ED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THA T THE CIT(A) HAS JUST CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY PASSING A NON SPEAKING ORDER . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AS REGARDS TO THE TIME BARRING ACT ION, WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OR NOT. A ND FURTHER DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS ALSO AFTER PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ITA NO.2328-29/AHD/10 A.Y. 03-04 & 04-05 GCA V. ITO TDS-4, ABD PAGE 3 4. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE, SHRI R.K. DHANESTA HAS NOT OBJECTED TO SETTING ASIDE OF THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER AND DESPITE PLEA TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , THEY HAVE NOT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF TIME BARRING ACTION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACT S, WE SET ASIDE THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DECIDE AS REGARDS THE LIMITATION AND THEN ON MERITS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 19 TH NOV, 2010 SD/- SD/- ( G.D.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 19/11/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD