M/s Prakash Trading Co., Noida V. DCIT (TDS), Noida

ITA 4366/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4226 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK GARG SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: G C SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4363/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ITA NO.4364/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S. RAJ ASSOCIATES, VS. DCIT, TDS, (UNIT OF RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA-HUF), NOIDA, L 1, CENTRE STAGE MALL, SECTOR 18, NOIDA. (PAN : AAIHR9757D) ITA NO.4365/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ITA NO.4366/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO., VS. DCIT, TDS, (UNIT OF MANPREET SINGH CHADHA-HUF), NOIDA, L 1, CENTRE STAGE MALL, SECTOR 18, NOIDA. (PAN : AAHHM3631E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 29.09.2017 O R D E R ITA NOS.4363 TO 4366/DEL./2016 2 PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : SINCE COMMON QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS IS INVOLVED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.05.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-I, NOIDA, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. 2. APPELLANT, M/S. RAJ ASSOCIATES (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS BEIN G ITA NOS.4363/DEL/2016 & 4364/DEL/2016 SOUGHT TO SET ASI DE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.05.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, NOIDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 ON THE SIMILAR GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.4363/DEL/2016 (AY 2012-13) ITA NO.4364/DEL/2016 (AY 2012-13) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-L, NOIDA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) & 201(LA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, BY INVOKING SECTION 194C(7) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-L, NOIDA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY ADJUDICATING ON THE ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.4363 TO 4366/DEL./2016 3 3. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE TAKEN UP DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, RAISE OR DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. APPELLANT, M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS B EING ITA NOS.4365/DEL/2016 & 4365/DEL/2016 SOUGHT TO SET AS IDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.05.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, NOIDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 ON THE SIMILAR GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.4365/DEL/2016 (AY 2012-13) ITA NO.4366/DEL/2016 (AY 2013-14) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-L, NOIDA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY TREATING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) & 201(LA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, BY INVOKING SECTION 194C(7) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-L, NOIDA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY ADJUDICATING ON THE ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE TAKEN UP DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS.4363 TO 4366/DEL./2016 4 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, RAISE OR DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS AR E : ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COM PLY WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 194C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) BY DEDUCTING TDS QUA THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRANSPORT OPERATOR IN ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT SINCE THE A SSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CAR RIER, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 194C (6) ARE NOT APPLICABL E TO THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TAX U/S 194C OF THE AC T. AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY FIXED THE TOTAL TAX LIABILITY OF TH E ASSESSEE AT RS.90,896/- & RS.15,096/- FOR AYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY IN CASE OF M/S. RAJ ASSOCIATES AND RS. 1,00,351/- & RS.13,013/- FOR AYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY IN CASE OF M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO.. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS. FEE LING AGGRIEVED, ITA NOS.4363 TO 4366/DEL./2016 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A ) BY FILING AFORESAID APPEALS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT (A) GOES TO PROVE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY N OTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) BEING A QUASI-JUDICIAL A UTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE LEG AL ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED IN THESE CASES, HE IS READY TO ARGUE THE CASES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WHEN THE POWER TO DE CIDE APPEALS HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UPON LD. CIT (A) BY A STATUTE, THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS FIRSTLY REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY LD . CIT (A) BY AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 8. SO, WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CONT ROVERSY AT HAND, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDERS AND TO REMIT THESE CASES BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) T O DECIDE AFRESH ITA NOS.4363 TO 4366/DEL./2016 6 AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEALS BEARING ITA NO.4363/DEL./2016 , ITA NO.4364/DEL./2016, ITA NO.4365/DEL./2016 & ITA NO.4 366/ DEL./2016 ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-I, NOIDA 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.