M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala V. JCIT, Ambala

ITA 3452/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6687 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3452/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.02.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2013 PASSED BY LD. CI T (A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD AO IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY HAS BEEN PASSED IN A HASTE AND HAS IGNORED BASIC ASPECTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER SECTION 201(1A)/201(1A) BY LD CIT (A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME, THUS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE SADAR BAZAR, AMBALA GIR/PAN: RTKO0072G VS. J CIT, AMBALA RANGE AMBALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3452/DEL/2014 (AY2009-10) PAGE 2 OF 4 2. THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PENELTY OF TAX U/S 156 IN LAWS ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES. 3. THAT THE TDS RETURN IS NOT EXISTS ON NSDL / TRACES FOR WHICH PENALTY IS LAVIED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. LD. DR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMAND HAS BEEN RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT DUE TO INVALID SELECTION OF PAN NUMBERS OF DEDUCTEES BY THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM DUE TO TDS AT THE RATE OF 20% HAS BEEN CALCULATED LD. DR REFERRED TO COMMENTS OF LD. AO RE PRODUCED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN ADMITTED BY LD. AO THAT SHORT DEDUCTION DEMAND HAS BEEN TRACED DUE TO THE PAN NUMBER BEING CONSIDERED AS IN VALID, IN CASE OF DEDUCTEES AND HAS BEEN WRONGLY CREATED BY ITD SYSTEM. 3. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), IT IS OBSERV ED THAT NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO LD. AO HAVE BEEN PASSED IN ORDER TO RECTIFY THE SYSTEM DEFECT. 4. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDI CATE THE APPEAL AS IT IS TECHNICAL IN NATURE, WHICH COUL D BE VERIFIED AND CORRECTED BY ITD SYSTEM PERSONNEL AND LD. CIT( A) HAS DIRECTED LD. AO TO R4ECTIFY THE MISTAKE BY PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS. ITA NO. 3452/DEL/2014 (AY2009-10) PAGE 3 OF 4 ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 27.02.2017 @M!T COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI)