The DCIT, TDS Circle, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2934/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9585 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH JHA SR DR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2931 TO 2933/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 TO 2015-15 DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT VS M/S. SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LTD., 5, SUZLON HOUSE, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT PAN : AAICS 2717 D ./ ITA NO. 2934/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT VS M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., 5, SUZLON HOUSE, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT PAN : AADCS 0472 N REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH JHA, SR-DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR / DATE OF HEARING 30/12/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/02/2016 / O R D E R ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD, BOTH DATED 10.08.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2013-14 TO2015- 16 PASSED IN CASE OF SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LTD A ND FOR ASSESSMENT (SMC) ITA NOS. 2931 TO 2934 AHD 2015 DCIT VS. SUZLON GUJ WIND PARK LTD: AYS 2013-14 TO 2015-16 DCIT VS. SUZLON ENERGY LTD : AY 2013-14 2 YEAR 2013-14 PASSED IN CASE OF SUZLON ENERGY LIMITE D. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS BELONG TO THE SAME GROUP AND IDENTICAL ISSU ES WERE RAISED IN ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS; THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS, EXCEPT FOR FIGURES. THE APP EAL-WISE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. AY FOR M QUARTER INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF TDS (A) INTEREST U/S 220(2) (B) TOTAL (A+B) 2931/AHD/2015 2013-14 26Q Q1 133270 25415 158685 2013-14 26Q Q4 690014 96413 786427 945112 2932/AHD/2015 2014-15 26Q Q1 103203 14616 158685 2014-15 26Q Q4 690014 21420 327492 445311 2933/AHD/2015 2015-16 26Q Q2 110616 2212 112828 2934/AHD/2015 2013-14 27Q Q4 527186 68575 595761 THEREFORE, FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, I TAKE T HE LEAD CASE AS ITA NO. 2931/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2013-14. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL IN ITA NO.2931/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2013-14:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NUMBER OF MONTH HAS TO BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF DEDUCTION AND THE PERIO D EXCEEDING 30 DAYS IS TO BE TREATED AS ONE MONTH INSTEAD OF ME THOD COUNTED BY THE AO AS PER GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY HIM DURING THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS AFTER FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW. (SMC) ITA NOS. 2931 TO 2934 AHD 2015 DCIT VS. SUZLON GUJ WIND PARK LTD: AYS 2013-14 TO 2015-16 DCIT VS. SUZLON ENERGY LTD : AY 2013-14 3 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE FACT. 3. THE ONLY CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A), THE TERM MONTH COUL D BE GIVEN ORDINARY SENSE, I.E., A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR WHETHER IT CO ULD BE TREATED AS BRITISH CALENDAR MONTH AS PER GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) BASED ON BRITISH CALENDAR MONTH, WHEREAS CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO WORK OUT INTEREST BY ADOPTING PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AS ONE MONTH . I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARVIND MI LLS LTD, REPORTED IN 16 TAXMANN.COM 291 (GUJ), WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HAS HE LD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 244A, TERM MONTH MUST BE GIVE N ORDINARY SENSE OF TERM, I.E., 30 DAYS OF PERIOD AND NOT BRITISH CALEN DAR MONTH AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 3(35) OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. SIMIL AR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMIS SION VS. ACIT (TDS), SURAT, REPORTED IN [2015] 62 TAXMANN.COM 133 (AHMEDABAD-TRIB), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201( 1A) IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND THUS GAP OF TIME BETWEEN POINT OF TIME W HEN TAX OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCES VIS--VIS POINT OF TI ME WHEN TAX WAS ACTUALLY DEDUCTED ARE TO BE SEEN AND IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT CONNOTATION OF EXPRESSION MONTH IS TO BE EXAMINED. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) WHICH IS HEREBY UPHELD. (SMC) ITA NOS. 2931 TO 2934 AHD 2015 DCIT VS. SUZLON GUJ WIND PARK LTD: AYS 2013-14 TO 2015-16 DCIT VS. SUZLON ENERGY LTD : AY 2013-14 4 4. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO. FACT S BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.2931/AHD/2015 (SUPRA), I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN TH ESE APPEALS AS WELL. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3RD FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA K. YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/02/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / D R, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD