M/s. Satyam Distributors, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 306/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68064 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.306/AHD/2013 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S.SATYAM DISTRIBUTORS 2A, TIRTHNAGAR SOCIETY-III SOLA ROAD GHATLODIA AHMEDABAD-380 061 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(3) AHMEDABAD ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAKFM 8266 E ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.BATHEJA, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2013 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/12/2013 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 18/01/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2006- 07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI V AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING AN APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006.07 ON 18.0 1.2013. (2) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASS ED U/S.154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2006-2 007. ITA NO.306/AHD/ 2013 M/S.SATYAM DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - (3) YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, O MIT ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINAL LY HEARD AND DECIDED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS THA T IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE AY 2006-07, ASSESSEE HAS NOT C LAIMED DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,65,500/- WHICH IS DISALLOWED BY A SSESSEE U/S.40(A)(IA) AND ADDED BACK THE SAME IN ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 2005-06 AND WHATEVER AMOUNT OF REFUND CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS P ER RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2006-07 HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO AS SESSEE WITH INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, D ISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. REPORTED AT 284 ITR 323 (SC) HAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO I TAT TO ENTERTAIN LAW POINTS AT ITS STAGE BUT NO SUCH RATIO IS LAID DOWN FOR FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF THIS, AS LD.CIT(A) WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT HE CANNOT ENTERTAIN SUCH CLAIM WHICH ARE NOT MADE BEFORE THE AO AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LIMITED. SH E SUBMITTED THAT FOR AY 2006-07 THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 17/10/2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,19,310/- TAX PAYABLE THEREON WORKS OUT TO RS.2,08,459/- AGAINST WHICH CLAIM OF TDS OF RS.45,126/- WAS MADE AND ADVANCE TAX OF RS.2,25,000/- WERE PAID AND THUS AS PER RETURN OF I NCOME FILED REFUND OF ITA NO.306/AHD/ 2013 M/S.SATYAM DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - RS.61,667/- WAS DUE. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER RECEIVED INTIMATION NOR REFUND. THE ASSESSEE NOTICED AN ERROR IN STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. IN AY 2005-06 ON PAYMENT OF RENT OF RS.2,65,500/- TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AND PAID IN TIME AND, THEREFORE, UNDER THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF RENT OF RS.2,65,500/- WAS DISAL LOWED AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME CONTAINED A NOTE IN WHICH IT WAS CATEGORICALLY NOTE D IN COMPUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR 31 ST MARCH-2005, I.E. CLAIM OF RENT PAID OF RS.2,65,500/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED U/S.40(A) SINCE T HE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED THEREON HAS BEEN PAID ON 05/10/2005. SHE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER BONAFIDE ERROR, WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,19,310/- FOR AY 2006-07, SAID ELIGIBLE CLAIM OF RS.2,65,500/- (F OR THE RENT PAYMENT DISALLOWED IN AY 2005-06 NOW ALLOWABLE IN AY 2006-0 7 AS TDS HAS BEEN PAID DURING FY 2005-06) WAS NOT CLAIMED. THE MISTAKE BEING APPARENT ON RECORD AN APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE IT ACT WAS FILED ON JANUARY 30,2009 NARRATING ABOVE MISTAKE AND REQUEST ING TO GRANT CORRECT AMOUNT OF REFUND TO ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HER CO NTENTION, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- SL.NO(S) IN THE NAME OF REPORTED IN 1. CHOKSHI METAL REFINERY VS. CIT 107 ITR 63 (GUJ.) 2. CIT VS. MATTOO WORSTED SPG. & WEAVING MILLS 139 ITR 1020 (J&K) 3. CIT VS. K.N.OIL INDUSTRY 142 ITR 13 (M.P.) 4. CIT VS. BALDEO RAM SALIGRAM (P) LTD. 188 ITR 470 (ALLAHABAD) 5. CIT VS. PRASAD FILM LABORATORY (P) LTD. 225 ITR 348 (A.P.) ITA NO.306/AHD/ 2013 M/S.SATYAM DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM THE RECORD. IT WAS THE MISTAKE OF ASSESSEE WHO FAILED TO MAKE T HE CLAIM. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D EPOSITED THE TAX IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED TH E APPEAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ E INDIA LTD. HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT AT THE TRIBUNAL ST AGE LEGAL ISSUES CAN BE ENTERTAINED. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CREDIT OF THE TAX DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT A CCOUNT, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE THE CREDIT ACCORDINGLY. THUS , GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/12 /2013 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.306/AHD/ 2013 M/S.SATYAM DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 3.12.13 (DICTATION-PAD 8-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 5.12.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.19.12.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 19.12.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER