Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi, Hailakandi V. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Silchar

ITA 42/GTY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8665 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI ‘VIRTUAL-HEARING’ AT KOLKATA Before Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Judicial Member and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.42/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi.......................................... Appellant Hailakandi, Dist.Cachar, Assam-788151. [PAN:SHLO01009B] vs. ITO(TDS), Silchar............................................................... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 11, 2021 Date of pronouncing the order : November 12, 2021 ORDER Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Judicial Member: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Ld. CIT(A), Shillong dated 29.11.2018 for assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the Assessing Officer has refused to accede to the petition u/s 154 wherein it was requested to rectify the order u/s 201/201(1A) in which assessee was treated as defaulter for failing to deduct tax at source on compensation paid for acquisition of immovable property. That for widening and other related work of National Highway No. 154 from Dhaleswari - Bhairabi section in the District of Hailakandi, the assessee (deductor) was the Land Acquisition Officer. Compensation amounting to Rs.13,46,06,846/- was paid to persons from whom the properties were acquired. The Assessing Officer initiated proceeding u/s 2 I.T.A. No.42/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi 201(1)/201(1A). From the order u/s 154 of the Act, it is seen that in course of proceeding, the Assessing Officer had asked assessee to furnish details like (i) Name of party (ii) Dag No. (ii) Area of land (iv) Class of land etc. In the filled in pro-forma, the class of land was mentioned to be Homestead/Agri. Total value of compensation was bifurcated into land value and jirat value. The Assessing Officer had treated the value mentioned against 'Agri' as being agricultural in nature. The rest of compensation was treated as being non-agricultural compensation for which tax was required to be deducted at source. That before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had filed written statement. That at perusal of such written statement and the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act vide para 4.3 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, he has opined that it is not clear whether the compensation paid were exclusively for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It is not known which parts of the land records were produced/furnished before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) justifies the rectification order of the Assessing Officer and dismisses the appeal of the assessee as per the reasons appearing in his order but at the same time observes in this order that re-verification of the facts is required to decide the case. 3. That before us, none appeared for the assessee however, the submissions of the Ld. DR were recorded and the case was heard on merits. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not brought out any specific reason through proper enquiry or examination of facts as to how the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 of the Act was justified and that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not given specific finding as to the merits of the case. It is also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) himself has stated that re-verification of facts were required to decide the case. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to give specific findings on merits regarding the case in hand and re- adjudicate as per law complying with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this observation of the Bench. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand back this file accordingly. 3 I.T.A. No.42/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 12 th November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- [Manoj Kumar Aggarwal] [Partha Sarathi Chaudhury] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 12.11.2021 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Deputy Commissioner of Hailakandi 2. ITO(TDS), Silchar 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True Copy// By Order Sr. PS, H.O/D.D.O, I.T.A.T, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.