Sh. Vaneet Sood, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 401/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60902 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Section: 143(3); 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VP AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM ITA NO. 401/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI VANEET SOOD V. I.T.O. (TDS) PANCHKULA SCO 85, SECTOR 5 PANCHKULA APXPS 2727 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING: 2.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 3 .07.2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING T WO EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 2 THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ITO (T DS), PANCHKULA IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1). 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ITO (TDS), PANCHKULA IN DETERMINING THE TDS LIABILITY AT RS. 5,81,631/- AND IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 201(1A) AT RS. 2,09,380/- MAKING A TOTAL LIABILITY OF RS. 7,91,011/-. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS IN ITS TWO DIVISIONS TO VARIOUS CONTRACTORS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- A. M/S V.K. SOOD ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR, DDS JV HEAD AMOUNT PAID (RS) JOB WORK 75,92,446 FREIGHT & CARTAGE OUTWARD 3,55,600 FREIGHT & CARTAGE 3,65,785 INTEREST 34,25,682 B. M/S V.K. SOOD ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR HEAD AMOUNT PAID (RS) FREIGHT & CARTAGE 4,77,113 INTEREST 6,93,419 2 3. A NOTICE U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) WAS ISSUED ON VA RIOUS OCCASIONS. NOBODY ATTENDED AND ON THE LAST OCCASIONS THE ASSES SEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BUT EVEN DESPITE ADJOURNMENT NOBODY APPEARED ON THE ADJOURNED DATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ASSES SEE IN DEFAULT AND LIABLE U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). 4. ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY CONTESTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AND IN ANY CASE THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE. HO WEVER, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS AND ENHANC ED THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A CHART AND SUBMITTED THAT TDS WAS APPLICABLE AGAINST THE AMOUNTS SHOWN I N THIS CHART. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY A ND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CASE WAS CONTESTED ON WRONG PLEA, THEREFORE, ANOTH ER OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN AND LIABILITY COULD BE FIXED ON ACCOUNT OF C HART FURNISHED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE H AS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE CASE WAS REMANDED. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS POWER SHOULD NOT BE CURTAILED TO EXAMINE THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE CHART. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AN D IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PUT UP APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPERLY. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CASE WAS CONTESTED ON THE WRONG PREMISE. THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON CERTAIN ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE CHART WHICH ARE AS UNDER: V.K. SOOD ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR, DDS, JV PROP. VANE ET SOOD S NO PARTICULARS AMOUNT REMARKS A) FREIGHT & CARTAGE OUTWARD RS. 355600/- TDS APPLICABLE B) FREIGHT & CARTAGE RS. 365785/- I) RS. 202573/- T DS APPLICABLE II) RS. 163212/- TDS NOT APPLICABLE RS. 365785/- C) JOB WORK (SUB CONTRACT) RS. 7592446/- TDS APPLICABLE @ 1% 3 D) TDS ON INTEREST TO IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. RS. 3425682/- TDS NOT APPLICABLE. WIKIPEDIA & SECTION 194A (3)(III)(I) V.K. SOOD ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR PROP. VANEET SOOD FREIGHT & CARTAGE RS. 477113/- RS. 160400/- TDS AP PLICABLE RS. 316713/- TDS NOT APPLICABLE RS. 477113/- 8. SINCE THESE ITEMS ARE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASI S OF ABOVE NOTED CHART AND ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE U/S 20 1(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE G IVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 3.07.2012 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (T.R. SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 .07.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 4