The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., Indore V. The DCIT (TDS), Indore

ITA 473/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1495 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRIDULA BAJPAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AAACT4053B I.T.A.NO. 473/IND/2012 A.Y. : 2009 - 10 COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, DY. CIT(TDS), INDORE. KAPAS B HAWAN, 27(A)-RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE. VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. S. DESHPANDE, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MRIDULA BAJPAI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 0 3 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 0 3 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 14.5.2012 , FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 201 /201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. -: 2: - 2 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING. THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WA S TO BE DEPOSITED BEFORE 31.5.2009. HOWEVER, THERE WAS SUND AY ON 31.5.2009, AND NEXT WORKING DAY I.E. ON 1.6.2009 DU E TO ERROR ON THE INTERNET, THE TDS COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED THROUGH NET BANKING ON 2.6.2009. THUS , THERE WAS A DELAY OF TWO DAYS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HELD THAT INTEREST HAS TO BE CHARGED FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2009, TO THE DATE OF MAKING PAYMENT OF TDS INTO THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT ACCORDINGLY, INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM 1 ST APRIL, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE THAT THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS WAS FOR TECHNICAL REASON AND FOR WHICH ASSESSEE, WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDE RTAKING SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BY CHARGING INTEREST FROM 1 ST APRIL, TILL 2 ND JUNE, 2009. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALS O PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM -: 3: - 3 INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, 78 TTJ 225, WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE LEVYING INTEREST U/S 201(1A), T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN RECKONING THE PERIOD OF DELAY FROM 1 ST APRIL, FOR CHARGING INTEREST AS THE ENTRIES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE 31 ST MARCH, ITSELF. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IN CASE WHERE ACCOUNTS WERE MADE UP TO 31 ST MARCH, THE LAW GIVES TWO MONTHS TIME FROM THE END OF MARCH, FOR RE MITTANCE OF TAX TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IN SUCH A CA SE, ONLY THE PERIOD AFTER THE SAID PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ALLO WED BY RULE 30(1)(B) CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKO NING THE DELAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURTHER DIRECTED T O CHARGE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) FOR THE DELAY FOR THE PERIOD A FTER1ST JUNE, OF RESPECTIVE YEARS. 4. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF COCHIN BENCH IN CASE OF ITO VS. REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSI TY OF SCIENCE, 1 ITR (TRIB) 252, WHEREIN INTEREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A) WAS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED WHERE DELAY WA S FOUND TO BE DUE TO TECHNICAL LAPSES IN A PUBLIC INSTITUTION. BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THIS DECISION, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE BEING A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA -: 4: - 4 UNDERTAKING, NO INTEREST SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR THE MARGINAL DELAY OF TWO DAYS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT DR , RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF IN DIA UNDERTAKING. THE TDS WHICH WAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT TREASURY ON 31.5.2009, COULD NOT BE DEPO SITED BECAUSE THERE WAS HOLIDAY (SUNDAY) ON 31.5.2009, ON THE NEXT WORKING DAY I.E. 1.6.2009, DUE TO ERROR IN IN TERNET, THE TDS COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSIT ED THROUGH NET BANKING ONLY ON 2.6.2009. I.T.A.T., MAD RAS BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, (SUPRA), HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT UNDER SUCH A SITUAT ION, ONLY PERIOD AFTER THE SAID PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ALLOWED BY RULE 30(1)(B) CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECKO NING THE DELAY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MADRA S BENCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECKON DELAY BY EXC LUDING PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS AND INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGED FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 31.05.2009. -: 5: - 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH MARCH, 2013. CPU* 63113