ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Krishna Continental Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3003/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 300320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NOS.3003 & 3004/DEL/11 F. YRS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S KRISHNA CONTINENTAL LTD., DELHI-92. 31/32, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. DELKO5182C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SATISH KHOSLA ADV. O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THESE ARE REVENUES APPEALS AGAINST CIT(A)S CONSOL IDATED ORDER DATED 30-3-2011 RELATING TO F. YRS. 2008-09 & 2009- 10. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. COMMON GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- DELETING THE DEMAND OF RS. 3,32,467/- RAISED BY THE AO AS INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 201(1A) AND HOLDING THAT TH E CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS ER RONEOUS. THIS HOLDING BY CIT(A) IS INCORRECT AND WRONG AS THE ASS ESSEE HAD DEPOSITED TDS LATE INTO GOVT. A/C ON WHICH CONSEQUE NTIAL INTEREST U/S 201(1A) WAS RIGHTLY CHARGED BY THE AO. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRI ED OUT IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. ACCORDING TO AO, THE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SUGGESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED DEFAULTS OF NON-PAYMENT OF TDS AND DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF TDS IN RESPECT OF INTEREST , COMMISSION AND PROFESSIONAL FEES U/S 194A, 194H AND 194J OF THE I. T. ACT. ON THE BASIS THEREOF ABOVE, DEMANDS WERE RAISED U/S 201(1) & 2 01(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT AND CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST THEREON IN THESE TWO YEA RS. 3.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEALS BE FORE THE CIT(A), WHERE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AOS ACTION WAS MISCONCEI VED AS THE FIGURES STATED BY HIM ABOUT TDS DEFAULTS WERE TOTALLY INCORRECT. ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT STATEMENTS AND RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT T HERE WAS IN FACT NO DEFAULT EITHER OF NON-PAYMENT OR LATE PAYMENT OF TDS. 3.2. THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOR WARDED BY THE CIT(A) TO AO FOR HIS REPORT, HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS FURNISH ED BY AO. CIT(A) THEREAFTER EXAMINED THE DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE A ND DELETED THE SHORT-FALL OF TDS U/S 201(1) AND INTEREST U/S 201(1A) BY HOLDING THAT THERE WERE NO TDS DEFAULTS AS OBSERVED BY AO, RELEVANT PARA IS AS UND ER: 6. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS, BUT NO REPLY HAS BEEN REC EIVED. HOWEVER, THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS FACTUALLY SHOWED THAT THE DEFAULTS REFERRED TO BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAVE NO CO-RELATION WITH ANY MAT ERIAL EXAMINED BY HIM, BE IT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR T HE STATEMENT OF SMT. SHIVANI SHUKLA. THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION IS FURTHER STRENGTHENS BY THE AUDIT REPORT FILED WHEREIN THE A UDITORS HAVE EXAMINED THE AMOUNTS OF TDS AND THE INTEREST PAID U /S 201(1A) OF THE ACT AND HAVE NOT COMMENTED ADVERSELY FOR THE TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION, THAT THE SHORT FALL OF DEDUCTION OF TAX U/ S 201(1) OF THE 3 ACT, DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CO NSEQUENTIAL INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT ARE ERRONEOUS. THER EFORE, THE DETERMINATIONS ARE DELETED, AS INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE TDS RETURNS FIELD . THE AO SHOULD HAVE RECTIFIED THE MISTAKES U/S 154, IF IT I S POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TO HIM. HE SHOULD NOT COMMIT SUCH MIS TAKES IN ANY OTHER CASES. 4. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND CONTEND ED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMMENTING ON AO AS MEN TIONED IN THE LAST LINE OF HIS ORDER, THE SAME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE EXPUNGED. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, CONTENDS THAT THE LAST SENTENCE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY STRIC TURE INASMUCH ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS ABOUT PAYME NT OF TDS AND AO WITHOUT CORRELATING THE FIGURES, RAISED THE DEMAND WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION. CIT(A) RIGHTLY FORWARDED THE SUBMIS SIONS TO AO FOR HIS COMMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT EVEN REPLIED BY HIM. LOOKI NG TO THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO SHOU LD NOT COMMIT SUCH MISTAKES IN OTHER CASES, THE SAME AMOUNTS TO G UIDANCE AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER IN HIERARCHY. 5.1. IT IS PLEADED THAT LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE EN TIRE DETAILS ABOUT RELEVANT TDS PAYMENT IN GREAT DETAILS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIO NS AND THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AO FOR HIS REPORT, WHICH WAS NO T COMMENTED AT ALL. LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE FI NDINGS OF CIT(A). IN 4 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ABOVE DEMANDS. 7.1. BESIDES, WE FIND NO REASON TO EXPUNGE LAST SEN TENCE OF CIT(A)S ORDER, WHO, IN OUR OPINION, BEING AN APPELLATE AUT HORITY, HAS INHERENT POWERS TO POINT OUT THE MISTAKES, THEREFORE, WE SE E NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11-08-2011. SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11-08-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 5