Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

ITA 3075/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0162 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Assessment record; Condonation of delay; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I.T.A. NO.3075/CHNY/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. MAHESH VALUE PRODUCTS P.LTD., 157, KAMARAJAR SALAI, MADURAI. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-3 MADURAI. PAN: AACCM7695N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. T.BANUSEKAR, CA /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .03.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI-1, IN ITA NO. 4 01/08/PR.CIT- 1/REVISION U/S.263/MDU/2016-17 DATED 31.03.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 198 DAYS IN FILING THE AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTING, INTER-ALIA, THAT COPY OF ORDER U/S.26 3 WAS HANDED OVER TO C.A, WHO WAS PRE-OCCUPIED WITH THE FINALIZATION OF VARIOUS ACCOUNTS AND WAS ON FREQUENT TRAVEL AND BY THE TIME THE CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT WAS AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION CONSIDERABLE DELAY HAD H APPENED. THEREFORE, 2 ITA NO.3075/CHNY/2017 THE ASSESSEE AVAILED THE SERVICES OF ANOTHER CHART ERED ACCOUNTANT FOR FILING THE APPEAL, WHICH HAS CAUSED THE DELAY. SIN CE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND HAVING FOUND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AS EXPLAINED, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY A ND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE LD.AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE PR.CIT ORDER, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- 3. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS REVEALED THAT A S UM OF RS.14,64,400/- WAS PAID TO PUSHPAK LOGISTICS PRIVAT E LIMITED ON WHICH TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED. AS PER PROVISION 194C O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, TDS SHALL BE DEDUCTED AND REMITTED INTO GO VERNMENT ACCOUNT IF THE AGGREGATE IN A FINANCIAL YEAR IS MOR E RS.75,000/-. SINCE, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERE D FOR DISALLOWANCE THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 14,64,400/- .AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CON DUCTING ENQUIRY, IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 26 3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07-03- 2017 POSTING THE HEARING ON14-03-201 7. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI R.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM , CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, A PPEARED, FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE CASE WAS HEARD. IN THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER: BY COMBINED READING OF SECTION 194C(6) AND (7) AN D RULE 31A(4)(V), IT CAN BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TDS FROM THE LORRY FREIGHT IF THE PERSON RES PONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE TONY FREIGHT COMPILES WITH TWO CONDITION S 1. THE PERSON TO WHOM THE LORRY FREIGHT IS PAID FUR NISHES HIS INCOME TAX PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AND 2. SUCH LORRY FREIGHT PAID DETAILS ARE FURNISHED IN THE ETDS STATEMENTS OF THE PERSON WHO IS PAYING THAT LORRY F REIGHT. 3 ITA NO.3075/CHNY/2017 IN OUR CASE, THE TONY FREIGHT PAID TO MIS PUSPAK LO GISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HAD ALREADY PROVIDED HIS PAN VIZ., AADCP56 28D AND WE HAVE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE FREIGHT PAYMENT I N OUR ETDS STATEMENT, WE HAVE NOT DEDUCTED TDS. SINCE WE HAVE COMPLIED BOTH THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY LAW, THE STAND TAKEN B Y US IS CORRECT. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE ALL DETAILS OF PAN IN FORM 26Q TO THE PRESCRIBED WITHIN THE DUE DA TE ACCORDING TO SECTION 194(7) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, R.W RULE 31A SO AS TO MONITOR THE DETAILS OF DEDUCTEES. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION, SUB SECTION (I) OF 194C GETS INVOKED. 5. SINCE, THE ABOVE ASPECTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT P ROPER ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 27-03-201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS CONSIDERED NOT ONLY ERRO NEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CO NDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION WITH REGARD TO ISSUES MENTIONED PARAGRAPH 3 ABOVE. THE AO SHALL ACCORD AN OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. PR.CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR OR PREJUDICE MUCH LESS BOTH TO WARRANT INV OCATION OF POWERS CONFERRED U/S.263. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(7) R.W.RULE 31A BY FILIN G A REVISED E-TDS STATEMENT ; AND HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO INCL UDE THE DETAILS OF THE CONTRACTOR M/S.PUSHPAK LOGISTICS P.LTD WHILE FILIN G THE REVISED E-TDS STATEMENT, HOWEVER, THESE ASPECTS DO NOT WARRANT IN VOCATION OF POWERS CONFERRED U/S.263. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED TO QUASH T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S.263. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE I SSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT 4 ITA NO.3075/CHNY/2017 ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 27.03.2015, IT IS CLE AR THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR.CIT IS WELL W ITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263 AND HENCE HE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL MA Y BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR. SINCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 27.03.2015, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE A.O, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR.CIT CLEARLY F ALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 263 AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR.CIT I S IN ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (. ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, /DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2019 SOMU #$% &% /COPY TO: APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. ( () /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF