ITO(TDS), Moradabad V. M/s. Executive Engineer, Raebareilly

ITA 4102/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4102/DEL/2014 AY: 20 08-09 ITA NO. 4103/DEL/2014 AY: 20 08-09 ITO (TDS), VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MORADABAD. PROVINCIAL DIVIS ION, LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG, RAEBAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER BENCH BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVE NUE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 23.04.2014 PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT (A) BAREILLY AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON; THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS OF DISTRICT RAEBARELI AND HAS BEEN FILING ITS RETURNS OF TDS THERE. DUE TO ERROR IN THE SYSTEM OF THE INCOME TAX DEPART MENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT BAREILLY/MORADABAD TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION O F TAX AT SOURCE I.T.A. NOS. 4102 & 4103/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 AND RAISED A DEMAND FOR THE FIRST QUARTER AND THE F OURTH QUARTER OF FY 2007-08. THIS ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE OFFICE OF THE JCIT (TDS) BAREILLY. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT (A), BAREILLY WHO MADE SUBSEQUENT INQUIRIES AND CONCLUDED THAT JURISDICTION OVER DISTRICT RAEBARELI ON THE DA TE OF PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WAS NOT LYING WITH ITO (TDS) BAREILLY/MORADABAD. LD. CIT (A) RELYING ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE NEWSPA PER SOCIETY VS ITO AND ANR (2012) 247 ITR 193 (BOMBAY) HELD THA T THE ITO TDS AT BAREILLY/MORADABAD COULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS AS THERE WAS A LACK OF JURISDICTION. LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS TERRITORIAL DISTRICT FELL WITHIN TH E JURISDICTION OF CIT FAIZABAD AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PASSED BY THE ITO (TDS), BAREILLY/MORADABAD WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 4. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE HAS APPROACHED THE IT AT AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- I.T.A. NOS. 4102 & 4103/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3 ITA NO. 4102/DEL/14 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FA CTS AND LAW BY QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE ITO (TDS) MORADAB AD U/S 201(1)/201(1A) AND ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.8,99,05 0/-, 7,20,070/- & 2,12,950/- ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD N O TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. TAN OF THE DEDUCTOR WAS LYING ON THE CODE OF ITO (TDS) MORADAB AD WHO PASSED THE ORDER IN THIS CASE. THE ORDERS ARE P ASSED ONLINE ON THE ITD APPLICATION, AND ONLY THE PERSON HAVING TAN ON HIS CODE CAN PASS SUCH ORDER. 2. WHILE DOING SO THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED FURTHE R IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ORDER U/S 201 (1) WAS PRI NTED OUT OF THE SYSTEM (AUTOMATIC ITD SOFTWARE) AND ONCE ORD ER IS PROCESSED BY COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM, THE A.O. HAS NO O PTION BUT TO SIGN IT AND SEND TO THE DEDUCTOR. 3. WHILE DOING SO IN (1) ABOVE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO ORDER ON THIS IS PASSED BY ANY OTHER A.O. AND THE SHORTFALL IN TDS WAS THER EFORE RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY ITO(TDS) MORADABAD. 4. THAT WHILE DOING SO IN (1) THE CIT (A) HAS FURT HER MORE ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE COR RECT JURISDICTION TO RAISE DEMAND AND BRING DEFAULT, OVE RLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO FRESH ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY ANY O THER AO U/S 201(3) (1) OF THE IT ACT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF T WO YEARS. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND/ADD AN Y ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. ITA NO. 4103/DEL/14 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEAL), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FA CTS AND LAW BY QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE ITO (TDS) MORADAB AD U/S 201(1)/201(1A) AND ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.39,73,3 60/-, 12,09,920/- & 42,41,130/- ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. TAN OF THE DEDUCTOR WAS LYING ON THE CODE OF ITO (TDS) MORADAB AD WHO PASSED THE ORDER IN THIS CASE. THE ORDERS ARE P ASSED ONLINE ON THE ITD APPLICATION, AND ONLY THE PERSON HAVING TAN ON HIS CODE CAN PASS SUCH ORDER. I.T.A. NOS. 4102 & 4103/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 4 2. WHILE DOING SO THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED FURTHE R IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ORDER U/S 201 (1) WAS PRI NTED OUT OF THE SYSTEM (AUTOMATIC ITD SOFTWARE) AND ONCE ORD ER IS PROCESSED BY COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM, THE A.O. HAS NO O PTION BUT TO SIGN IT AND SEND TO THE DEDUCTOR. 3. WHILE DOING SO IN (1) ABOVE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO ORDER ON THIS IS PASSED BY ANY OTHER A.O. AND THE SHORTFALL IN TDS WAS THER EFORE RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY ITO(TDS) MORADABAD. 4. THAT WHILE DOING SO IN (1) THE CIT (A) HAS FURT HER MORE ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE COR RECT JURISDICTION TO RAISE DEMAND AND BRING DEFAULT, OVE RLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO FRESH ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY ANY O THER AO U/S 201(3) (1) OF THE IT ACT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF T WO YEARS. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND/ADD AN Y ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE ITO (TDS) O N THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OVERLOOKED THE F ACT THAT ORDER U/S 201 (1) WAS PRINTED OUT OF THE SYSTEM (AUTOMATI C ITD SOFTWARE) AND ONCE AN ORDER IS PROCESSED BY COMPUTE RIZED SYSTEM, THE A.O. HAS NO OPTION BUT TO SIGN IT AND S END TO THE DEDUCTOR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT ( A) HAD FURTHER ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED BY ANY OTHER A.O. AND, THEREFORE, THE SHORTF ALL IN TDS HAD TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. I.T.A. NOS. 4102 & 4103/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 5 6. NINE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER DISTRICT RAEBARELI ON THE DATE OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WAS NOT LYING WITH THE ITO (TDS) BAREILLY/MORADABAD. EVEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING, T HE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT TH E FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND FIND NO ERROR IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION DID NOT LIE WITH THE ITO (TDS) BAREILLY/MORADABAD, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS S UFFERED FROM LACK OF JURISDICTION AND WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE . WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT THE ITO (TDS) MORADABAD IS DIRECTED TO BRING THE DE FAULTS, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED WHO RIGHTLY HOLDS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO MPETENT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ADOPT AND INITIATE PROCEEDING S AS WERE AVAILABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECLINE TO INTER FERE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN BOTH THE APPEALS AN D DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT. I.T.A. NOS. 4102 & 4103/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 6 8. IN THE FINAL RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DEP ARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.04.2017. SD/- SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIV ASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6TH APRIL 2017 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI