Vishal Enterprise, , Jamnagar V. Income Tax Officer, TDS-3, Jamnagar.

ITA 347/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4930 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 246A; 10; 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR. NO. ITA NO. & ASSTT. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 347/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 VISHAL ENTERPRISE, PLOT NO. 3010, 3012, PHASE II, DARED, JAMNAGAR PAN : AAGFV 6139 H ITO, TDS-3 JAMNAGAR. 2. 351/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA PROP. OF MAHESH METAL, B-31, HIRJI MISTRI ROAD GIDC, STU, JAMNAGAR. PAN : RKTL 00277 E -DO- 3. 352/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA PROP. OF GOPINATH METALS PLOT NO.21/2, GIDC, STU JAMNAGAR. PAN : RKTJ 03238 E -DO- 4. 353/RJT/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA PROP. OF JEET INDUSTRIES PLOT NO.21/2/2, GIDC, STU JAMNAGAR. PAN : RKTP 03640 A -DO- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 07/05/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/05/2019 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- PRESENT FOUR APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A) OF EVEN DATED I.E. 20. 8.2018 PASSED ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. ALL THESE APP EALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 2 - 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING FINE LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY HOLDING THAT NO APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST AN O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. 3. FACTS ON ALL VITAL POINTS ARE COMMON IN THE CASE OF ALL THE APPEALS. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE ENGA GED IN SALE OF SCRAP. ACCORDING TO THE AO, AS PER SECTION 206(C) EVERY PE RSON BEING A SELLER AT THE TIME OF DEBITING OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE BUYER TO THE ACCOUNTS OF BUYER OR AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF SUCH AMOUNT FROM SUCH BUYER IN CASH OR BY ISSUING CHEQUE, COLLECT AN AMOUNT FROM SUCH BUYER SPECIFIED IN COLUM-2 OF THE TABLE ATTACHED TO THE SECTION. IN OTHER WORDS, BEING A S ELLER, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO COLLECT TAXES AT SOURCE FROM THE BUYER AT THE TI ME OF SALE OF SCRAP. SECTION 206C(1A) FURTHER PROVIDE THAT SELLER WILL NOT BE RE QUIRED TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE BUYER IF SUCH BUYER FURNISHES TO THE SELLE R A DECLARATION IN WRITING (IN DUPLICATE) IN PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE P RESCRIBED MANNER TO THE EFFECT THAT GOODS REFERRED TO IN COLUMN (2) OF THE AFORESAID TABLE ARE TO BE UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING, PROCESSI NG OR PRODUCING ARTICLE OR THINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE BUYER WAS GOING TO USE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEES IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, AND THEY GIVE A DECLARATION IN SPECIFIED FORM AT THE TIME OF BUYING THE GOODS, THE N TCS WILL NOT REQUIRE TO BE COLLECTED FROM SUCH BUYER. APART FROM THESE TWO CO NDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A STATEMENT IN FORM NO.27EQ TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME UND ER RULE 31AA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO A LL THESE ASSESSEES HAVE COMMITTED A DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 06C(6) AND 206C(7) OF THE ACT. ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 206C(6) AND 206C(7) WER E PASSED HOLDING THE ASSESSEES AS ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT ON ACCOUNT OF NON- COLLECTION OF TAXES AT THE TIME OF SALE. FOR MAKING A REFERENCE, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE FACTS FROM ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 3 - M/S.VISHAL ENTERPRISE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THIS CO NCERN SOLD SCRAP OF RS.22.68 CRORES IN THE F.Y.2012-13 RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. IT IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT TCS OF RS.22.68 LAKHS. BUT FAI LED TO COLLECT THE TCS AND ALSO FAILED TO SUBMIT FORM NO.27EQ FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH BASANTILAL LADHA SCRAP W ORTH RS.68.65 LAKHS WAS SOLD AND TCS OF RS.68,656/- WAS NOT COLLECTED, NOR STATEMENT IN FORM NO.27EQ WAS SUBMITTED. ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS 206C(6) AND 2 06C(7) WERE PASSED ON 17.3.2017 WHEREBY TCS LIABILITY OF RS.68,656/- WAS DETERMINED IN THE CASE OF RAKESH B. LADHA. IN THE CASE OF VISHAL ENTERPRISE S, SUCH LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AT RS.22,68,692/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3. 2017. DISSATISFIED WITH THESE ORDERS, ALL THESE ASSESSEES WENT IN APPEALS B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD.AO HAS PASSED ORDERS UNDER SECTION 234E IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES ON 17.3 .2017 EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF VISHAL ENTERPRISE, WHICH WAS PASSED ON 30.3.2017. THE LD.AO HAS DETERMINED THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING FORM NO.27EQ AND LEVIED FIN E AT THE RATE OF RS.200/- PER DAY. SUCH DELAY WAS 1402 DAYS IN THE CASE OF V ISHAL ENTERPRISES AND RAKESH B. LADHA; 1037 DAYS DELAY IN THE CASES OF SH RI PARAG MAKANBHAI PANSARA AND JAYESHBHAI K. DANGARIYA. THE FINE UNDE R SECTION 234E COULD BE LEVIED EITHER AT THE RATE OF RS.200/- PER DAY FOR T HE PERIOD OF DEFAULT OR EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF TCS, WHICHEVER IS LOWER . IN THE CASE OF VISHAL ENTERPRISES, TCS AMOUNT WAS RS.22,68,692/- WHOSE FI NE UNDER SECTION 234E WAS DETERMINED AT RS.12,48,800/- ON THE BASIS OF NU MBER OF DAYS CALCULATED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF RAKESH B. LADHA, T CS WAS RS.68,656/-. PENALTY WAS RESTRICTED EQUIVALENT TO THIS AMOUNT. SIMILAR EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ASSESSEES. DISSATISFIED WIT H THIS LEVY OF PENALTY, ALL THE ASSESSEES WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF FACTS, HELD THAT APPE AL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 234E IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE FINDING IS V ERBATIM SAME IN THE CASES, ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 4 - EXCEPT VARIATION OF AMOUNTS AND DATES. FOR THE FAC ILITY OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE UP THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF RAKESH BASA NTILAL LADHA AS UNDER: 5. THE ORDER U/S. 234E AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AS REPRODUCED IN INITIAL PARAGRAPHS OF TH IS APPEAL ORDER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I S REPRODUCED IN INITIAL PARAGRAPH OF THIS APPEAL ORDER. HOWEVER, THIS SUBMI SSION OF AR OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. IT IS MENT IONED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 234E OF THE ACT LEVYING THE FEE FOR LATE FILIN G OF QUARTERLY STATEMENT IN FORM 27EQ FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01/06/2015 IS NOT APPE ALABLE AS PER SECTION 246A OF THE IT ACT. CHARGING OF FEE U/S. 234E HAS BEEN M ADE BY RECASTING CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A SO AS TO MAKE IN TIMATION/ORDER U/S. 200A RECTIFIABLE U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND APPEALABLE U/S. 246A OF THE ACT ONLY AFTER 01/06/2015. 5.1 THE ITO TDS WD-3, JAMNAGAR HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE U/S. 234E AND NOT U/S. 200A OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS UNION OF INDIA (2017) ,83 TAXMANN.COM 137 HAS HELD THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 1/06/20 15, THIS PROVISI ON (I.E. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR COMPUTING THE FEE P AYABLE U/S. 234E. AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT PRIOR TO 1/06/2015, T HE PROVISION DID NOT INCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE FEE PAYABLE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT. AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT BY RECASTING SUB-SECTION(L), THE NEW CLAUSE (C) PERMITS THE AUTHORITY TO COMPUTE THE FEE, IF ANY, PAYABLE B Y THE ASSESSEE U/S. 234E, AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (D), ADJUST THE SAID SUM AGAINS T THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS PER THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OF GUJARAT IF AT ALL, THE RECASTED CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT. AS PER THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT EVEN IN ABSENCE OF SUCH PROVISION, AS NOTED, IT WAS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO CHARGE THE FEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 234E. AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT BY AMENDMENT, THIS ADJUSTMENT WAS BROUGHT W ITHIN THE FOLD OF SECTION 234E AND THIS WOULD HAVE ONE DIRECT EFFECT. AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AN ORDER PASSED U/S, 200A IS RECTIFIABLE U/ S. 154 AND IS ALSO APPEALABLE U/S. 246A. AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN ABSENCE OF POWER OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENT U/S. 200A, ANY CA LCULATION OF THE FEE WOULD NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE INTIMATION UNDER S AID PROVISION AND IT WOULD BE ARGUED THAT SUCH AN ORDER WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO A NY RECTIFICATION OR APPEAL. FROM THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT O F GUJARAT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT BY AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A, THIS ADJUSTMENT (I.E. CHARGING OF FEES U/S. 234E AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 200A) WAS BROUGHT WITHIN THE FOLD OF SECTION 234E AND THIS WOULD HAVE ONE DIRECT EFFECT I.E. AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 200A IS RECTIFIABLE U/S. 154 AND IS ALSO APPEA LABLE U/S. 246A. IN ABSENCE OF POWER OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENT U/S. 200 A ANY CALCULATION OF THE FEE WOULD NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE INTIMATI ON UNDER SAID PROVISION AND ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 5 - THAT SUCH AN ORDER WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO ANY RECTIFI CATION OR APPEAL. THUS FROM THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJ ARAT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT ONLY ORDER PASSED U/S. 200A IS RECTIFIABLE UNDER 15 4 AND IS ALSO APPEALABLE UNDER 246A AND THEREFORE, ANY SEPARATE ORDER PASSED U/S. 234E OF THE ACT LEVYING THE FEE FOR LATE FILING OF QUARTERLY STATEM ENT IN FORM 27EQ FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01/06/2015 IS NOT APPEALABLE AS PER SECTIO N 246A OF THE IT ACT. CHARGING OF FEE M/S. 234E HAS BEEN MADE BY RECASTIN G CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A SO AS TO MAKE INTIMATION/ORDER U/S. 200A RECTIFIABLE U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND APPEALABLE U/S. 246A OF THE ACT ONLY AFTER 01/06/2015. 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISC USSED IN JUST PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS APPEAL ORDER, THE APPEAL OF THE A PPELLANT AS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 234E OF THE ACT IS HERE BY DISMISSED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MAHARASHTRA C RICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT, 74 TAXMANN.COM 6 AND ALSO GAJANAN CONSTRUCTIO NS V. DCIT, 73 TAXMANN.COM 380 AND CONTENDED THAT INTIMATION GENER ATED AFTER PROCESSING TDS STATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC TION 154 AND APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 246A, SINCE DEMAND ISSUED BY THE AO I S DEEMED TO BE A NOTICE OF PAYMENT UNDER SECTION 156. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DI SMISSED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES WITHOUT EXAMINI NG LEGALITY OF THE ISSUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD.CIT( A) HAS FOUND THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO COLLECT TAX SOURCE UNDE R SECTION 206C AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE COLLECTED FORM NO.27C AND SUBMITTED THE SAME THOUGH BELATEDLY AND THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DEMAND RAIS ED UNDER SECTION 206C VIDE ORDER DATED 25.1.2019 AND 28.1.2019 FOR THE AS STT.YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014- 15 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ON THAT BASIS ASSESSEES ARE NOT LIABLE TO COLLECT TCS AND ALSO NOT LIABLE TO FILE Q UARTERLY TCS RETURNS IN FORM 27EQ. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI VS. UNION OF INDIA, 83 TAXMANN.COM 137 (GUJ). ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 6 - 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 206C(6) AND 206C(7) O F THE ACT. ASSESSEES WENT IN APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDING TO LEAR NED COUNSEL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THEIR APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 25.1.2019 AN D HELD THAT SINCE ALL THESE ASSESSEES HAVE COLLECTED FORM NO.27C FROM THE PURCH ASERS OF SCRAP, DISCLOSING THEREIN THAT SUCH SCRAP WILL BE USED IN MANUFACTURI NG OR PROCESSING. SUCH DECLARATION WAS TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRESCRIBED RULES. ONLY LAPSE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEES WAS THAT THESE FORMS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WELL IN TIME, BUT THEY WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO. AS OBSERVED EARLI ER, IF THE PURCHASER SUBMITS SUCH DECLARATION THEN THE ASSESSEE BEING SELLER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE. HENCE, IF IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLEC T TCS THEN SUBMISSION OF STATEMENT IN FORM NO.27EQ WILL BE A PROCEDURAL FORM ALITY. DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 206C(6) AND 206C(7) OF THE ACT STAND DELETED. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DEMAND, NON-FILING OF FORM NO.27EQ IS TECHNICA L AND VENIAL BREACH ONLY. THE APPELLANTS COULD BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT S INCE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE, OR IT WAS NIL TCS, THEREFORE, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT SUCH FORMS. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THESE ORDERS HAVE BECOME FINAL BECAUS E TAX EFFECT EXCEPT IN VISHAL ENTERPRISE IS LESS THAN MONETARY LIMIT FOR CHALLENG ING ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN FURTHER APPEAL. ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPME NT I.E. AFTER ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 25.1.2009 AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED UN DER SECTIONS 206C(6) AND 206C(7) OF THE ACT, FOUNDATION OF ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 234E STANDS EXTINGUISHED. THESE ORDERS ARE BEING DEPENDED UPON THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COLLECTION OF TAX. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE WAS NO TCS LIABILITY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE FORM STATING ZERO TAX COLLECTION IN FORM NO.27EQ WILL BE MERELY A FORMALITY. IT IS MORE SO THAT FINE UNDER SECTION 234E COULD NOT EXCEED ELEMENT OF TCS LIABILITY REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE AFTER ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 234E AS WELL AS ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 7 - AFTER DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A). A PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S IMPUGNED ORDERS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES HA VE BEEN DISMISSED FOR REASONS THAT NO APPEAL IS BEING PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA). BEFORE CONSIDERING THIS DECISION AND APPRECIATING THE FIND ING OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 234E CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT W.E.F. 1.7.2015 AND SECTION 200A(1). IT READS AS UNDER: 'FEE FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS. 234E.(1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SE CTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDR ED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT IN ACCORDANC E WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SE CTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION(3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SEC TION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX D EDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012.' *** **** *** 14. SECTION 200A(1) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015 PROVIDED AS UNDER: SECTION 200A(1) 'PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE . 200A. (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOU RCE [OR A CORRECTION STATEMENT] HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUC H STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COM PUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 8 - (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION I N THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASI S OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDE R CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTION 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SE NT TO TH E DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUANCE O F THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUAN CE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR:] PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, W HERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE T AX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUB -SECTION.' WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015, SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 200A WAS AMENDED. IN THE AMENDED FORM, THE SAME PROVISION READS AS UNDER: SECTION 200A(1) 'PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE . 200A. (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOU RCE [OR A CORRECTION STATEMENT] HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY SUM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECTION 200, SUC H STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 9 - (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COM PUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION I N THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASI S OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 20 0 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SE NT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURSUAN CE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR:] PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB- SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, W HERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE THE T AX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUB -SECTION.' 8. RELEVANT DISCUSSION MADE BY THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT READS AS UNDER: 17. IN ESSENCE, SECTION 234E THUS PRESCRIBED FOR THE F IRST TIME CHARGING OF A FEE FOR EVERY DAY OF DEFAULT IN FILING OF STATEMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 10 - SECTION 200 OR ANY PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SE CTION 206C. THIS PROVISION WAS APPARENTLY ADDED FOR MAKING THE COMPLIANCE OF D EDUCTION AND COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, DEPOSITING IT WITH GOVERNMENT REVENU E AND FILING OF THE STATEMENTS MORE STRINGENT. 18. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE MAY NOTICE THAT SECTION 200 A WHICH PERTAINS TO PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE ONCE A STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS F ILED BY THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE TO DO SO AND AUTHORIZES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MA KE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS WHICH ARE PRIMA-FACIE OR ARITHMETICAL IN NATURE. TH E OFFICER WOULD THEN SEND AN INTIMATION OF A STATEMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, THIS PROVISION DID NOT INCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE FEE PAYABLE UN DER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. BY RECASTING SUB-SECTION (1), THE NEW CLAUSE-C PERM ITS THE AUTHORITY TO COMPUTE THE FEE, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECT ION 234E OF THE ACT AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE-D, ADJUST THE SAID SUM AGAINST THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 19. IN PLAIN TERMS, SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS A MA CHINERY PROVISION PROVIDING MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING A STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION O F TAX AT SOURCE AND FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH ARE, AS NOTED EARLIER, AR ITHMETICAL OR PRIMA-FACIE IN NATURE. WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015, THIS PROVISION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR COMPUTING THE FEE PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SECTION 234E IS A CHARGING PROVISION CREATING A CHA RGE FOR LEVYING FEE FOR CERTAIN DEFAULTS IN FILING THE STATEMENTS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES A MACHINERY PROVISION CAN OVERRIDE OR OVERRULE A CHARGING PROVI SION. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE THAT SECTION 200A OF THE ACT CREATES ANY CHARGE IN ANY MANNER. IT ONLY PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING A STATEMENT FOR TAX DEDUCTION AND THE METHOD IN WHICH THE SAME WOULD BE DONE. WHEN SECTIO N 234E HAS ALREADY CREATED A CHARGE FOR LEVYING FEE THAT WOULD THEREAF TER NOT BEEN NECESSARY TO HAVE YET ANOTHER PROVISION CREATING THE SAME CHARGE. VIE WING SECTION 200A AS CREATING A NEW CHARGE WOULD BRING ABOUT A DICHOTOMY . IN PLAIN TERMS, THE PROVISION IN OUR UNDERSTANDING IS A MACHINERY PROVI SION AND AT BEST PROVIDES FOR A MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING AND COMPUTING BESIDE S OTHER, FEE PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E FOR LATE FILING OF THE STATEMENTS. 20. EVEN IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WITH INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 234E, IT WAS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO DEMAND AND COLLECT THE FEE FOR LATE FILING OF THE STATEMENTS. SECTION 200A WOULD MERELY REGULATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH FEE WOULD BE MADE AND DEMAND RAISED. IN OTHER WORDS, WE CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT A REGULATORY PROVISION BEING FOUND FOR SECTION 200A FOR COMPUTATION OF FEE , THE FEE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 234E CANNOT BE LEVIED. ANY SUCH VIEW WOULD AMOUNT TO A CHARGING SECTION YIELDING TO THE MACHINERY PROVISION. IF AT ALL, THE RECASTED CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A WOULD BE IN NATURE OF CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT. EVEN IN ABSENCE OF SUCH PROVISION, AS NOTED, IT WAS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO CHARGE THE FEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. BY AMENDMENT, ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 11 - THIS ADJUSTMENT WAS BROUGHT WITHIN THE FOLD OF SECT ION 200A OF THE ACT. THIS WOULD HAVE ONE DIRECT EFFECT. AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND IS ALS O APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 246A. IN ABSENCE OF THE POWER OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, ANY CALCULATION OF THE FEE WOULD NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SAID PROVISION AN D IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT SUCH AN ORDER WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO ANY RECTIFICATIO N OR APPEAL. UPON INTRODUCTION OF THE RECASTED CLAUSE (C), THIS SITUA TION ALSO WOULD BE OBVIATED. EVEN PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, IT WAS ALWAYS OPEN FOR TH E REVENUE TO CALCULATE FEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT IN CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI (SUPRA) HELD THAT SECTION 200A WAS NOT MERE LY A REGULATORY PROVISION, BUT WAS CONFERRING SUBSTANTIVE POWER ON THE AUTHORI TY. THE COURT WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS IN THE NATURE OF PRIVILEGE TO THE DEFAULTER IF HE FAILS TO PAY FEES THEN HE WOULD BE RID OF RIGOR OF THE PENAL PROVISION OF SECTION 271H OF THE ACT. WITH BOTH THE SE PROPOSITIONS, WITH RESPECT, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCUR. SECTION 200A IS N OT A SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIVE POWER. SUBSTANTIVE POWER TO LEVY FEE CAN BE TRACED TO SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT IS NO T IN LIEU OF THE PENALTY OF SECTION 271H OF THE ACT. BOTH ARE INDEPENDENT LEVIE S. SECTION 271H ONLY PROVIDES THAT SUCH PENALTY WOULD NOT BE LEVY IF CER TAIN CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT THE TAX WITH FEE AND INTEREST IS PAID. THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION BEING THAT THE STATEMENT IS FI LED LATEST WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DUE DATE. 21. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HOWEVER, REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 TAXMAN 1 (SC), TO CONTEND THAT WHEN A MACHINERY PROVISION IS NOT PROVIDED, THE LEVY ITSELF WOULD FAIL. THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B C SRINIVASA SETTY (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BA CKGROUND. ISSUE INVOLVED WAS OF CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF A CAPIT AL ASSET. IN CASE ON HAND, THE ASSET WAS IN THE NATURE OF GOODWILL. THE SUPREME CO URT REFERRING TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONCERNING CHARGING AND COMPUTING CAPITA L GAIN OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS SUGGEST THAT THEY INCLUDE AN AS SET IN THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH NO COST CAN BE CONCEIVED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE ASSET IS SOLD AND THE CONSIDERATION IS BROUGHT TO TAX, WHAT IS CHARGED IS A CAPITAL VALUE OF THE ASSET AND NOT ANY PROFIT OR GAIN. THIS DECISION THEREFORE WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. 22. IN THE RESULT, PETITION FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE CHALLENGE BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT WAS THAT A S TATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE COULD BE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT, PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06 .2015, THERE WAS NO ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 12 - MECHANISM TO LEVY FINE UNDER SECTION 234E WHILE PRO CESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THUS, ACC ORDING TO THE PETITIONER, NO FINE COULD BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND IT WAS HELD THAT FINE CAN BE LEVIED INDEPENDENTLY UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE A CT, BECAUSE HONBLE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 234E IS A CHARGING SEC TION AND FOR A LEVY OF FEE IS NOT DEPENDED UPON MACHINERY PROVISION. 10. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WERE PASSED ON 30.03.2017. T HE LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE HOLDING THAT THESE ORDERS WERE PASSED INDEPENDENTLY UNDER SECTION 234E AND THEREFORE NO APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE, FAILED TO TAKE NOTE THE AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN SECTION 200A(1) WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE 2015. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SECTION 200 CASTS A DUTY UPON THE PERSON DEDUC TING TAX TO DEPOSIT THE SAME WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. SUB-SECTION (3) REQUIRES TO SUBMIT STATEMENT OF SUCH DEDUCTION IN PRESCRIBED FORM WITH IN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 31AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES , 1962. SUCH STATEMENTS ARE TO BE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 200A AND, WHILE C ARRYING OUT THIS EXERCISE OF PROCESSING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN LEVY FINE AS PER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 200A. IT IS A MACHI NERY PROVISION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDU RE CONTEMPLATED UNDER THIS SECTION. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE WOULD LIKE T O NOTE OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A, WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODU CED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015, AS UNDER:- 200A(1)(C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; 11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT PROPOUND S THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS PROCEDURE, A FINE COULD BE LEVIED U NDER SECTION 234E BECAUSE IT ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 13 - WAS A CHARGING SECTION; BUT, ONCE A PROCEDURE HAS B EEN PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THEN IT DOES NOT GIVE DISCRETION TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER HE IS EXERCISING SUCH POWERS UNDER SECTION 234E OR HE IS EXERCISING THE POWERS WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENTS. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE STATEMENTS WERE NOT FILED, BUT THIS FACT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 206C(6)/206C(7). H E PROCESSED THAT FACT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH STATEMENTS OUGHT TO BE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. ONCE A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THEN IT IS TO BE CONST RUED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER FOLLOWIN G THE PROCEDURES. MERELY BY MENTIONING SECTION 234E IN THE TITLE OF THE ORDE R, IT WOULD NOT BECOME AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E IN ISOLATION - MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT SHOWS THAT THESE ORDERS ARE PATENTLY INVALID AND NOT SUSTAINABLE, BECAUSE THEIR FOUNDATION HOLDING THE A SSESSEE IN-DEFAULT AND CALCULATING FINE FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT HAS BEEN EXTINGUISHED AFTER THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) PASSED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED UNDE R SECTION 206C(6)/206C(7). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT LIABLE TO COLLECT TCS. IN THAT SITUATION, SUBSEQUE NT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 234E R.W.S. 200A WOULD BECOME WITHOUT ANY J URISDICTION AND INVALID. 12. BEFORE US, ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORD ERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 206C(6)/206C(7) HAVE BEEN PLA CED IN THE CASES OF RAKESH B. LADDHA, JAYESH K. DANGARIYA AND PARAG M. PARSANA. IN THE CASE OF VISHAL ENTERPRISE, NO SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED. THEREFORE, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THESE THR EE CASES, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HEIR CASES ON 17.03.2007. SO FAR AS THE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF VISHAL EN TERPRISE IS CONCERNED, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES THE ORDER OF HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY HO LDING THAT NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED, THEN LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL RECTIFY HIS ORDER. ITA NO.347/RJT/2018 AND 3 OTHERS - 14 - IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF SUCH NEW FACTS, HE WILL READJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF VISHAL ENTERPRISE. 13. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEALS OF RAK ESH B LADDHA, JAYESH K DANGARIYA AND PARAG M PARSANA ARE ALLOWED AND THE A PPEAL OF VISHAL ENTERPRISE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2019. SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 31 /05/2019 **VK/BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $ '' , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. ) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 30/05/2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 30.05.2019 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.-. 31.05.2019 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.2019.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK31.0 5.2019.. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER