The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bareilly V. State Bank Of India, Bareilly

ITA 321/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83343 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.321/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BAREILLY. VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, SHYAMAGANJ, BAREILLY. TAN:LKNSO5344D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 04/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 7 /09/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 03/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007 (FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 24Q - 4 TH QUARTER). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY ACCEPTING NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE DEDUCTOR WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE DEDUCTOR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT H E HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE DUE TAX AND THAT SHORT DEDUCTION/NON - PAYMENT IS DUE TO MISMATCH. THIS FACT WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR IT WAS REFLECTED ON THE ITD SYSTEM WHEN THIS ORDER U/S 201(1) /201(1A) WAS PASSED. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM BY CALLING FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CALL FO R NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS ARE FULLY CENTRALI ZED AT CPC (TDS) VAISHALI GHAZIABAD A ND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER. THE ONLY REMEDY F OR THE DEDUC T OR IS F ILE C ORRECTION STATEMENTS ON - LINE AND GET THE DEMAND REDUCED THROUGH CPC (TDS). 3. THE CIT(A) BEING A QUASI - JUDICIAL BODY HAS ERRED FURTHER IN DIRECTING THE AO(TDS) TO CARRY OUT RECTIFICATIONS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF RECTIFICATION/CORRECTIONS LAID DOWN BY CPC(TDS). NO PROOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE NECESSARY CORRECTION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH CPC(TDS). BEING A PERSON F ROM THE DEPARTMENT, THE C I T(A) IS REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND ACTUAL PROCESSES LAID D OWN BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WHETHER DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HIM ARE EXECUTABLE OR NOT. 4. BY DOING SO IN 1,2,3 ABOVE, THE CIT(A) HAS MECHANICALLY DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL, WHILE NO IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS DIRECTIONS ARE POSSIBLE AT A.O. (TDS) END. IN CASE OF MISMATCH, THE REMEDY LIES IN FILING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WHICH ARE AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSED BY THE CPC (TDS). TILL CORRECTION STATEMENT IS PROCESSED, THE AO(TDS) ORDER STANDS, AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE A.O. ALTHOUGH NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING BUT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 05/06/2014 ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS PER WHICH IT HAS BEEN PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CONTENTS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO . 1 THAT 'CIT(A) BAREILLY HAS WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THE NEW EVIDENCE' ARE WRONG AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. RESPONDENT HAS ONLY SUBMITTED HIS PART (ENCLOSED AS PAGE NO 1) AGAINST THE EX - PARTE ORDER OF ITO (TDS) BLY AND EXPLAINED BEFORE C IT (A) 3 THAT ITO (TDS) BLY FAILS TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF DEMAND EVEN LETTER SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) ,BAREILLY [ENCLOSED AS PAGE NO. 2) DATED 21 - 01 - 2014. 2. THAT THE CONTENTS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO . 2 THAT 'THE PROCESS OF TDS STATEMENT ARE FULLY CENTRALIZED AT CPC (TDS) VAISHALI GHAZIABAD AND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER' IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A.Y 2006 - 07 AND PROCESSING OF TDS RETURNS AND R EVISION AT CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD IS POSSIBLE ONLY FROM THE F.Y . 2007 - 08 (I.E . A.Y . 2008 - 09) ONWARDS. SO NO REMEDY FOR RESPONDENT AVAILABLE AT CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD IN THIS CASE. 3. THAT THE CONTENTS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL ME NTIONED IN PARA NO. 3 ARE ALSO NOT AP PLICABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE CORRECTION/REVISION OF TDS RETURN AT CPC GHAZIABAD IS POSSIBLE FROM A.Y 2008 - 09 ONWARDS. SO T HE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) FOR FACTUAL VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF ITO (TDS) BLY WITH CO - OPERATION OF RESPONDENT IS CORRECT IN THESE CIR CUMSTANCE S . 4. THAT THE CONTENTS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 4 THAT REMEDY LIES BY FILING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WITH CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD IS WRONG BECAUSE PROCESSING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT AT CP C IS POSSIBLE ONLY FROM A.Y . 2008 - 09 ONWARDS . SCREEN PRINT OF WINDOW APPEAR AT WEBSITE TDSCPC.GOV.IN AFTER LOGIN OF TAN OF RESPONDENT IS ENCLOSED HERE AS PAGE NO . 3 AND 4 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR RESPONDENT AT CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD. THE REQUEST OF APPELLANT TO S TAND THE ORDER OF AO (TDS) TILL THE PROCESSING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THIS CASE. 5. THAT THE ITO (TDS) FAILS TO PROVIDE THE DETAIL OF NATURE OF DEMAND TO THE RESPONDENT AND HIS ORDER WAS EX - PARTE ORDER AS NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN BY ITO (TDS) BLY BEFORE PASSING HIS .ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 6. DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) RESPONDENT MAKE FULL EFFORT TO KNOW THE DETAIL OF DEMAND BY LETTER DATED 21/01/2014 TO THE APPELLANT BUT APPELLANT FAIL TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS TO RESPONDENT (LETTER ENCLOSED AS PAGE NO 4 2).THIS FACT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT T HE DEMAND RAISED BY THE ITO (TDS) , BLY IS FICTITIOUS IN NATURE AND LIABLE TO B E DELETED. SIR, IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS , THE APPEAL IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL THAT THE PROCESSI NG OF TDS STATEMENTS ARE COMPUTERIZED AT CPC (TDS), IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT SUCH COMPUTERIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ONWARDS BUT BEFORE THAT, THE VERI FICATION HAS TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BY CPC. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 7 /09/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR