Babe Ke Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital, Moga V. ITO (TDS), Ludhiana

ITA 309/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68560 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTADR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 80C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 309/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. BABE KE AYURVEDIC MEDICAL VS. THE ITO (TDS) ,1 COLLEGE & HOSPITAL LUDHIANA (UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY), MOGA PAN NO. AAATU1851B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/11/2013 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)II, LUDHIANA ON 21/12/2011 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: 1. THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OF TDS SURVEY OUR COUNS EL ATTENDED HEARINGS TIME TO TIME AND PRODUCED RELEVANT INFORMATIONS / DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY LD. AO. 2 2. THAT ON08.01.2010, OUR COUNSEL WENT TO THE OFFICE O F LD. AO, TO ATTEND HEARING BUT THE LD. AO, WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE DUE T O SOME OFFICIAL WORK. OUR COUNSEL AFTER HAVING TELEPHONIC DISCUSSION WITH THE WORTHY LD. AO FILED INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS VIZ. INCOME & EXPENDITU RE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEETS, ITRS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS, SALARY RECORDS, FOR M 16 AND PROOFS OF SAVING U/S 80C FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 TO 2008-09 ALON G WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS AND GOT THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM OFFICE BO Y. THE VOUCHER FILES BEING ORIGINAL COULD NOT BE FILED ON THE SAME DAY F OR VERIFICATION. .3. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N STATING THAT IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO AVAIL THIS OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BECAU SE INFORMATION WAS JUST RECEIVED BY THE COUNSEL. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THI S CASE CAME FOR HEARING ON 03/05/2012 AND HAD BEEN ADJOURNED ON VARIOUS DATES ON SIMILAR REASONS THEREFORE TODAY WE REJECTED THE ADJOURNMENT AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL AT E X-PARTE BASIS. 4. LD. DR WAS HEARD. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND DURING THE COURSE OF TDS/TCS SURVEY / INSPECTI ON CONDUCTED ON ASSESSEE ON 22/12/2009, IT HAD CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE REVENU E THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED FROM VARIOUS PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN LISTED AT PAG E 1TO 3 OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201 (1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1 961. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT WHY THE DEMAND OF RS. 237741/- SH OULD NOT BE RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 6. NONE APPEARED DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, THE REFORE, AO CALCULATED THE LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 117006/- AS PER PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: THOUGH THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, EVIDENCE FOR AL LOWING DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,97,982/- U/S 80-C OF I.T. ACT 19 61, WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED ON THE SAID DATE FIXED, FAILING WHIC H LIABILITY U/S 201(1) W.R.T SAID DEDUCTION SHALL BE WORKED OUT SEPARATELY WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN ADDITION TO THE DEMAND WORKED OUT IN PARA 2 ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY 3 DEMAND @20% OF THE SAID AMOUNT (BEING ALL PAYMENTS FALL IN 20% SLAB) WORKS OUT TO RS. 79,596/- PLUS INTEREST U/S 201(1A) THEREON, I.E. RS. 37,410/-( I.E. @1% FOR 47 MONTHS), TOTALING RS. 1,17,006/- IS WORKED OUT UNDER THIS HEAD. 7. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED BY HIM AS UNDER: IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN ORIGINAL VIDE LETTER DATED 19.05.2011. SHRI VINAY JAIN, CA COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. CASE ADJOURNED FOR 27.05.2011. ON THE GIVEN DATE I WAS ON SEARCH DUTY BEING PART OF TRAINING. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FRESH OPPORTUNITY VIDE LETTER NO. 383 DATED 10.06.2011 TO FURNISH THE DESIRED INFORMATION ON 21.06.2011. BUT THIS LETTER RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED WITHOUT ANY P OSTAL REMARKS. AGAIN, ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH ORIGINAL VOUCHERS /BILLS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF EXPENSE ON 05.07.2011. ONE THE GIVEN DATE, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO ADJOURN THE PROCEEDINGS. CASE ADJOURNED FOR 07.07.2011. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUC ED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE V ERIFIED WITH THE BOOKS AND SAME WAS REJECTED. ULTIMATELY LD. CIT(A) DECIDES THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 4 WHICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NTS COUNSEL AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED AND ALSO PERUS ED APPELLANTS RIVAL SUBMISSION AND AOS COMMENTS THEREUPON. THE AO VIDE HER REPORT HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AT T HE APPELLATE STAGE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A PLAIN RE ADING OF THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALS THAT THESE VOUCHE RS ARE NEITHER VERIFIED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE INSTITUTE NOR ANY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER HAS BEEN PLACED ON THESE VOUCHERS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT FOR ADMIS SION OF THESE VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RU LE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. FURTHER, AFTER CON SIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DEMAND CREATED BY TH E AO UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED A ND RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO DISMISSED. 4 8.. BEFORE US, AS NOTED EARLIER IN THIS CASE, VARIO US ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT AND NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 9.. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2013 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR