ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Maruti Insurance Agency Network Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3983/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6363 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H S AHUJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.3983, 3984 /DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MARUTI INSURANCE AGENC Y NEW DELHI NETWORK LTD., PLOT NO.1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VED JAIN, CA MS. RANO JAIN, ADV. I.T.A. NO. 3985, 3986/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, 2011-2012) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MOUNT CARMEL NEW DELHI SCHOOL SOCIETY, 21, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.S. AHUJA, CA I.T.A. NO. 3987, 3988, 3989 /DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MALAYASIAN AIRLINE NEW DELHI SYSTEM BERHAD, 16 TH FLOOR, DR. GOPAL DAS BHAWAN, 28, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJIV PAL PURI, CA I.T.A. NO. 3990, 3991, 3992/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MAHARISHI SHIKSHA SANST HAN I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 2 NEW DELHI A-116, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY: NONE I.T.A. NO. 3993, 3994, 3995/DLE/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MAGIC INTERNATIONAL PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI 9/54, KIRTI NAGAR INDL. AREA, DELHI ASSESSEE BY: NONE I.T.A. NO. 3997/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MALINI EXIM INTERNATION AL, NEW DELHI 5A, GANPATI COTTAGE, 1A, COURT ROAD, NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K SAMPATH, SHRI RAJ KUMAR, ADV. I.T.A. NO. 3998/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MANJIRAL BROTHERS (DIST RIBUTION) NEW DELHI PVT. LTD., 356 INDL. ESTATE, PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY: NONE I.T.A. NO. 3999/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MARVEL POLYMERS PVT. LT D., NEW DELHI A-4, UDYOG NAGAR, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R N BHATIA, CA I.T.A. NO.4000/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. METLOY OVESEA PVT. LD., NEW DELHI A-65A, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 3 ASSESSEE BY:MS. VANITA GUPTA, CA C.O. NO.426/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) M/S. METLOY OVERSEA PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 50(4), A-65A, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI. I.T.A. NO. 4001/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MILNARD SALES PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI. 4772, HAUZ QAZI, DELHI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TARUN KUMAR, CA I.T.A. NO. 4002/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITO, WARD 50(4), VS. M/S. MUNILAL MOTILAL & CO., NEW DELHI 435, KATSRA CHOBAN, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI ASSESSEE BY: NONE I.T.A. NO. 4050, 4051 & 4052/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, 2010-2011) ACIT, CIRCLE 51(1), VS. M/S. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI F-8, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R L GARG, CA (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH: I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 4 THIS BATCH OF 23 MATTERS COMPRISE OF 22 APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND ONE C.O. OF AN ASSESSEE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, CHALLENGE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO GIVING OF DIRECTION BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. TO TAKE COR RECTIVE ACTION TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS WITHIN TWO MON THS, EITHER THROUGH ITD SYSTEM OR MANUALLY WHEN THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMI SSED BY HOLDING THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 200A OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ARE NOT APPEALABLE U/S 246A, WHEREAS THE C.O. SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 1.1 SINCE COMMON FACTS ARE INVOLVED AND THE ISSUE I NVOLVED IS ALSO IDENTICAL AND THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, T HEREFORE, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE 2. SOME OF THESE CASES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSELS OF THE ASSESSEES WHEREAS IN SOME CASES, THERE HAS BEEN NO REPRESENTA TION. SINCE THESE APPEALS INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND SIMILAR FACTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE A.R.S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY EARLIER DECIS ION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMIL NADU) PVT. LTD AND OTHERS IN I.T.A. NO. NOS. 4028-4049 & 4053-4054 & 4057/DEL/20 12 DISPOSED OF BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 01 ST OCTOBER 2012 REPORTED IN 2012 (10) TMI 365- ITAT, DELHI AND BY FILING COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES PLEADED FOR TAKING SIMILAR VIEW A S TAKEN IN THESE CASES. 3. LD. D.R. PLEADED THAT SINCE APPEALS WERE NOT MAI NTAINABLE, SO, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING ANY DIRECTION WHILE DIS MISSING THE APPEAL BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) TO THIS EXTENT, SHOULD BE MODIFIED BY PASSING SUITABLE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDE AND CONSIDERED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE PRECEDENT RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE AND FIND I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 5 THAT ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING CONSOLIDATED ORD ER ON 01 ST OCTOBER 2012:- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 4028 TO 4049//DEL/2012 A.YRS. : 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 51(1), ROOM NO. 508, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI (APPELLANTS) M/S UNITECH WIRELESS (TAMIL NADU) PVT. LTD., THE MASTRPIECE BUILDING, SECTOR-54, GOLF COURSE ROAD, GURGAON, HARYANA (PAN/GIR NO. : AAGCA4923K) (RESPONDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY: MRS. SUSHMA SINGH, C.I.T.(D.R.) ASSESSEE BY : SH. TAPAS RAM MISHRA, ADV. I.T.A. NOS. 4053 & 4054/DEL/2012 A.YRS. 2010-2011 & 2011-12 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 51(1), ROOM NO. 508, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI VS. M/S TURKISH AIRLINES, THAPAR HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR, 124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI -110001 (PAN : AABCT9438K) DEPARTMENT B Y: MRS. SHUMANA SEN, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : NONE I.T.A. NO. 4057/DEL/2012 A.Y. 2010-2011 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VS. M/S VATIKA LTD., I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 6 TAX, CIRCLE 51(1), ROOM NO. 508, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 621-A, DEVIKA TOWER, 6, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCV5647G) (APPELLANTS ) (RESPONDENTS ) DEPARTMENT BY: MRS. SUSHMA SINGH, C.I.T.(D.R.) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, ADV. ORDER PER BENCH THIS BUNCH OF 25 APPEALS IS BY THE REVENUE, CHALLE NGING SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PERVERSE AND ERRO NEOUS ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 4 GROUNDS I N THESE APPEALS TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S. 200A OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPEALABLE U/S. 246A AND ON THE OTHER HAND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES IN THE ORDER WITHIN TWO MONTHS. DURING THE HEARING, IN SOME CASES, AS MENTIONED IN CAPTION OF APPEALS, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ISSUES ARE INVOLVED FOR ADJUDICATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, THEREFORE, THESE APPEA LS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV ES, WHO ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) ERRED IN GRANTING DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND F URTHER ERRED IN FIXING TIME LIMIT OF TWO MONTHS FOR RECTIFICATION O F THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE AS APPLICABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED OR DER BY SUBMITTING THAT EVEN IF THE APPEAL IS NOT FILED, STILL THERE I S NO GRIEVANCE TO THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO A COMMON C ONCLUSION, WE ARE I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 7 REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE APPELLANTS U/S . 200A OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST THE COMP UTERIZED PROCESSING ORDER OF AO (TDS) WHERE TAX AND INTEREST U/S. 200A HAVE BEEN COMPUTED IN THE COMPUTER FOR SHORT DEDUCTION / SHORT PAYMENT/ LATE PAYMENT BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO APPEAL PROVISION U/S. 246A OF THE I.T. ACT FOR FILING APPEALS AGAINST ORDER U/ S. 200A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE APPELLANTS ARE ADVISED TO FILE NECESSARY CORREC TIONS STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO (TDS), COORDINATE AND COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RECTIFY THE ORDER U/S. 200A/154 OF TH E I.T. ACT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER RECTIFICATION, PAY THE TAX AND INTEREST IF ANY, AFTER RECTIFICATION. THE AO (TDS) SHOULD GI VE APPEAL EFFECT TO THESE ORDERS WITHIN 2 MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORD ER IMMEDIATELY BY ISSUING NECESSARY NOTICES U/S. 154 OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT AND RECTIFYING THE ORDERS AS PER LAW. IF THE RECTIFICA TION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN COMPUTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD MANUALLY R ECTIFY BY PASSING SUITABLE ORDER IN A FORMAT SO THAT A MASS RECTIFIC ATION CAN BE COMPLETED QUICKLY. THE AO (TDS) SHOULD GIVE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE RECTIFYING THESE ORDE RS AND LISTENING TO THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT. 6. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE ANALYZED, THERE IS DIRECTION/ ADVICE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) TO FILE CORRECT STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER(TDS), AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E REVENUE SHOULD NOT FEEL AGGRIEVED, AS THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE IS TO D O JUSTICE. EVEN OTHERWISE, NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS MERELY REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER, THE SAME IS UPHELD. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE RESPECTIVE ASSESSES. THE ASSESSES ARE AT FURTHER LIBERTY F URNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM. SINCE THE ASSESSES HAVE BEEN GRANTED FAIR OPPORTUNITY, THEREFORE, THE TIME LIMIT OF COM PLETION WITHIN TWO MONTHS, AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A), IS WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO COMPLETE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME/AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 7. FINALLY, SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE RIDER, ALL THE APP EALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.398-95,3997-4002, 4050-4052/DEL/2012 C.O.NO.426/DEL/2012 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CON CLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 01.10.2012. SD/- SD/- [U.B.S. BEDI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 01/10/2012 SRBHATNAGAR 5. SINCE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE CASES IS COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS REPRODUCED ABOVE AND OTHERWISE ALSO , THE VIEW AS EXPRESSED BY THE BENCH IS FOUND TO BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE, T HEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER, WE ADOPT THE SAME VIEW AND DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WITH THE RIDER INDICATED IN THE PRECEDENT R ELIED UPON. SINCE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THEREFORE, C.O. OF ONE OF THE ASSESSEES BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND AS SUCH IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE C. O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2014. SD./- SD./- (D. K. SRIVASTAVA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 23 RD MAY, 2014. SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI