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

ITA 4104/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2918 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4 104 /DEL./201 4 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 9 - 1 0 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMB E R & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4 1 04 / DEL./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 ITO (TDS) MORADABAD VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FIRST CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, UP JAL NIGAM RAIBAREILY (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN ) REVENUE BY: SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING 2 5 / 0 5 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 9 / 0 5 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E AFORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 3 . 4 .201 4 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS ) , B AREIL L Y IN RELATION TO PROCEEDINGS U /S 20 1( 1 ) /201(1A). IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 - THE LD. CIT (APPEAL), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE ITO (TDS) MORADABAD U/S 201(1)/201(1A) AN D ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS, 14,15,020/ - , 19,61,780/ - & 6,83,130/ - ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. TAN OF THE DEDUCTOR PAGE 2 OF 6 WAS LYING ON THE CODE OF ITO (TDS) MORADABAD WHO PASSED THE ORDER IN THIS CASE. THE ORDERS ARE PASSED 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 FURTHER IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ORDER U/S 201 (1) WAS PRINTED OUT OF THE SYSTEM (AUTOMATIC ITD SOFTWARE) AND ON CE ORDER IS PROCESSED BY COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM, THE A.O. HAS NO OPTION 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 THEREFORE RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY ITO(TDS) MORADABAD. 4 - THAT WHILE DOING SO IN (1) THE CIT (A) HAS FURTHER MORE ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO OF THE CORRECT JURISDICTI ON TO RAIS ED DEMAND AND BRING DEFAULT, OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO FRESH ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY ANY OTHER AO U/S 201(3) (1) OF THE IT ACT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , WHO IS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FIRST CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, UP JAL NIGAM , IS BASED AT RAIBAREIL L Y DISTRICT WHO HAD FILED THE E - TDS RETURN. THE JCIT (TDS) BAREIL L Y NOTED THAT THE SAID TDS STATEMENT AS REPORTED BY THE DEDUCTOR AND THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS PER BANK C HALLAN S DETAILS , THERE ARE CERTAIN DISCREPANCY AND AFTER ANALYZING OBSERVE THAT THERE IS EITHER NONPAYMENT OF TDS OR THERE IS LOW DEDUCTION OF TDS. ACCORDINGLY , ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DEFECT HE TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN - DEFAULT U/S 201 ALSO LEVIE D INTEREST U/S 201(1A) FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 14,15,020/ - . PAGE 3 OF 6 3. THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS ) BAREIL LY HELD THAT DUE TO TECHNICAL ERRORS AND SYSTEM PROBLEM IN FEEDING THE CHALLANS, THE ASSESSEE W AS TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN - DEFAULT . H E FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN DISTRICT RAIBAREIL LY, WHEREAS ITO TDS, MORADABAD HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) , WHO IS IN CHARGE OF JCIT TDS, BAREILLY. HE ACCORDINGLY ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION REGARDING HIS JURISDICTION OVER THE RAIBAREILI DISTRICT. IN RESPONSE , THE JCIT TDS BAREILLY SUBMITTED THAT IT O (TDS) MORADABAD H AS CO - TERMINUS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH CIT MORADABAD AND CIT BAREILLY. H OWEVER THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS ) OBSERVED THAT HE SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO KNOW THE JURISDIC TION ITO TDS MORADABAD UPON THE DISTRICT IN RAIBAREILLY AND NOT BAREILLY AND HE CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ITO TDS MORADABAD WAS OVER THE DISTRICT OF RAIBAREIL LY ON THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER . HE HELD THAT THE PROPE R JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE LIED WITH CIT FAI ZA BAD AND THEREFORE , THE ORDER PASSED BY ITO TDS MORADABAD WHO WAS UNDER JCIT (TDS), BAREILLY, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE ITO TDS . 4. NOW BEFORE US , A LETTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT WHATEVER TECHNICAL DEFAULT REPORTED WAS IN CPC TDS SITE HAS NOW BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE CHALLANS ARE MATCHING WITH UPLOADED TDS AMOUNT. I N VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO LONGER BE TREATING AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT , BECAUSE NOT ONLY THE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BUT SAME HA S BEEN PAID AND UPLOAD ALSO . THE RELEVANT PHOTO COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS PASTED HERE WITH: - PAGE 4 OF 6 ALONG WITH THE SAID LETTER , PHOTO COPY OF TDS TRACES HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US ALONG WITH TDS CHALLAN S . 5. NOW IN WAKE OF AFORESAID LETTER AND THE FACT THAT TECHNICAL DEFAULT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT , THEREFORE , WE DO NOT WANT TO ENTER INTO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE COPY OF TDS TRACES AND BANK CHALLAN S AND IF THE SAID MISTAKE HAS BEEN RECTIFIED , THEN THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE TR E ATED AS ASSESSEE IN - DEFAULT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALSO DECIDE THE ISSUE INTEREST U/S 201(1 A ). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PAGE 5 OF 6 ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 . 0 5 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( PRASHANT MAHARSHI ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 9 . 0 5 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 2 5 .0 5 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 6 .0 5 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. PAGE 6 OF 6 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 9 . 5 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 9 . 5 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.