M/s. Hi Mech Engineering Works, Valsad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Valsad

ITA 2894/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72825 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKAR SHARMA

Judgement Text

S , , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.2894/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] M/S. HI MECH ENGINEERING WORKS 1, JA JALARAM SHOPPING ATUL FIRST GATE ATUL, VALSAD 396 001 PAN : AADFH 6347 J /VS. ITO, WARD-2 VALSAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA . + , #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD DA TED 28.09.2012. 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNTING TO ` 1,00,355/- EVEN THOUGH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AND APPELLANT DID FURNISH T DS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.16A BUT CREDIT SO ALLOWED WAS WITHDRAWN BY ORDER U/S.154. ITA NO.2894/AHD/2012 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 1,00,355/- WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND NECESSARY DET AILS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE RE WAS A MISTAKE OF MENTIONING THE PAN OF THE DEDUCTOR, AND THEREFORE, THE CREDIT OF TDS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NEC ESSARY CLARIFICATORY LETTER ISSUED BY M/S.UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD. DATED 4.3.2010 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.3.2011 ALONG WITH AN INDEMNITY B OND IN FAVOUR OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REVISED TDS CERTIFICATE ON PRESCRIBED FOR M GIVING CORRECT PAN TILL THE DATE, AND THEREFORE, THE CREDIT THEREOF CO ULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CI T(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAS NOT RETURNED SO CALLED DEFECTIVE TDS FORM NO.16A OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL FILE A REVISED FORM NO.16A AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL FORM NO.16A FROM THE AO. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IS THAT O NCE TDS IS MADE, THE CREDIT THEREOF SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE PERSON CONC ERNED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THIS CASE, DUE TO TECHNICAL MISTAKE OF WRONG MENTIONING OF PAN BY THE DEDUCTOR, THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNT TH EREOF WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUN T HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO RETURN DEFECTIVE ORIGINAL FORM 16A TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT THEREOF SHALL FILE A REVISED TDS CERTIFICATE ON PRESCRIBED FORM NO.16A TO BE ITA NO.2894/AHD/2012 ISSUED BY THE DEDUCTOR AND ON PRODUCTION THEREOF, T HE AO SHALL ALLOW THE CREDIT THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE. I DIRECT ACCORDING LY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD