Smt. Renuka Jithesh, Palakkad V. The ITO, Palakkad

ITA 257/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8475 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: NONEADJT PETITION REJECTED
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI B P JAIN, AM ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 (ASST YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. RENUKA JITHESH, 5/373-1, VIJAY HOUSE, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD-678 001. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PALAKKAD. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AITPJ 0371N ASSESSEE BY NONE-ADJT. PETITION REJECTED REVENUE BY SHRI A. DHANARAJ, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 28/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/06/2016 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THRISSUR DATED 18/03/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PALAKKAD U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMAND RAISED IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER IS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE APPELLA NT IS AN ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 2 ASSESSEE ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF AN INDIVIDUAL. O RIGINALLY, THE APPELLANT HAD A PROPRIETARY CONCERN VIZ, M/S. GLOBA L LOGISTICS WITH A PAN AAFFG 8498M. THIS PAN WAS GIVEN TO ALL MOST ALL THE DEDUCTORS OF TAX AND ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE DEDUCTIN G TAX WITH PAN AAFFG 8498M. BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PA N AAFFG 8498M IS A PAN INDICATING THE STATUS AS A FIRM. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR THE SAID PAN O NLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL FOR HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN VIZ. GLOBAL LOGISTICS BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE DEPARTMENT BY MISTAKE ISSUED PAN I N THE STATUS OF A FIRM. SINCE THE PAN IS IN RELATION TO A FIRM THE APPELLANT AS AN INDIVIDUAL FACED DIFFICULTIES IN FI LING THE RETURN WITH THE WRONG STATUS AS A FIRM. HENCE THE APPELLAN T HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO APPLY FOR A FRESH PAN AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED THE NEW PAN AITPJ 0371N THAT IS T HE PRESENT PAN. BUT IN THE MEANTIME THE DEDUCTORS CONTINUED TO USE THE OLD PAN AND DEPOSITED THE TDS IN THE NAME OF THE FI RM VIZ. GLOBAL LOGISTICS. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN ALSO CLAIMING THE TDS IN HER RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DEPAR TMENT WHILE GIVING CREDIT FOR TDS. THE DEPARTMENT IN FACT ALSO REFUNDED RS.146400/- TO THE APPELLANT AFTER PROCESSING HER R ETURNS. THE PROBLEM WITH PAN AND TDS CAME TO LIGHT AND HER NOTI CE ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S. 143(3). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL MAY GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THE CREDIT FOR THE TDS NOW STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF AAFFG 8498M TO THE CREDIT OF AITPJ 0371N. IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SAID DIRECTIONS AR E REQUIRED TO RENDER JUSTICE AND EQUITY TO THE APPELLANT. PRAYED ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WENT WRONG WHILE CONSIDERING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ENQUI RED INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE PAN IN A WRONG STATUS. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ASKED TO PRO VE THE NEGATIVE AND HE EMPHATICALLY STATED HE APPLIED FOR PAN IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS A FIRM. 4. THE APPELLANT ACTUALLY APPROACHED THE DEDUCTORS FOR RECTIFICATION OF PAN BUT THEY REFUSED TO DO SO. ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 3 5. THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF GRANTED CREDIT FOR TDS IN THE PRIOR YEARS. 6. FOR THESE AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE R AISED AND EVIDENCES ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAY ED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE MODIFIED, SET ASIDE, CANCELLED OR QUASHED. PRAYED ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAVING PA NO. AITPJ 0371N. SHE FILED RETURN FO R THIS YEAR DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,76,410/-. IN THE RETURN, SHE CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,84,767/-. DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ON THE FORM NO. 16A, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THIS TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN THE PAN AA FFG 8498M OF M/S. GLOBAL LOGISTICS. AS THE TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN WAS IN THE NAME OF A FIRM, WHICH IS HAVING A DIFFERENT PAN,THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CREDIT FOR THE TDS AND CREATED THE DEMAND OF RS.3,64,174/-. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED SINCE NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BEEN ESTA BLISHED AND ACCORDINGLY, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE MATTER EX PART E AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. AND PERUSAL OF MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 4 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARDS THE INCOME REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TDS DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME SO RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCED OUT OF T HE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN DEPOSITED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE ONLY DEFECT IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE CORRECT PAN NO. IN FORM 16A WHICH IS A SMALL MISTAKE AND CANNOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE PUNISHABLE FOR THE TDS DEDUCTION AND TO BE TAXED AGAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. THUS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 257/COCH/2016 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-06-2016. SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 28 TH JUNE , 2016 GJ COPY TO: 1. SMT. RENUKA JITHESH, 5/373-1, VIJAY HOUSE, PUTH UR, PALAKKAD-678 001. ITA NO.257/COCH/2016 5 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKKAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), THRISSU R. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THRISSUR. 5. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN