KLE Belgaum Imaging and Diagnostics Private Limited, Belagavi V. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward - 1, Belagavi

ITA 56/PAN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3871 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIDHAR DORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VEERANNA MURGOD
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI : [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.50 to 56/PAN./2023 Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2015-2016 KLE Belgaum Imaging and Diagnostics Private Limited, KLES Prabhakar Kore Hospital and MRC, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi. PIN – 590 010 PAN AACCK2997D Karnataka. vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Belagavi. Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Veeranna Murgod For Revenue : Shri Shridhar Dora, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2024 ORDER PER BENCH : These assessee’s seven appeals for assessment years 2009-2010 to 2015-2016, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many orders as its Dins and Orders Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/103440136(1); 103440161(1); 103440199(1); 103440215(1); 1042060010(1); 103440238(1) and 103440277(1); all dated 27.07.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2 I.T.A.Nos.50 to 56/PAN./2023 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant seven appeals suffer from 547 delay each stated to be attributed to various health complications, lack of communication coupled with various other miscellaneous reasons. Revenue has strongly argued that the assessee has not been able to show any reasonable cause explaining the same. We find no reason in Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of the assessee’s solemn pleadings in it’s identical condonation petitions filed along with the relevant medical records of the concerned authorised persons. The impugned identical delay of 547 days stands condoned in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. 3. Next comes the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance challenging the learned lower authorities action taking recourse to sec.154 rectification thereby treating it as an “assessee-in-default” u/sec.201 r.w.s.201(1A) of the Act for the purpose of recovering the corresponding TDS, involving varying sums, in all these assessment years. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands regarding correctness of the 3 I.T.A.Nos.50 to 56/PAN./2023 impugned rectification proceedings. It emerges during the course of hearing that the impugned TDS recoveries pertain to assessee’s payments of licence-fee of various CT and X-ray machines which have been treated as rental in nature attracting sec.194I of the Act. We find in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer had duly passed his sec.201(1) r.w.s.201(1A) order(s) on 28.01.2016 not holding the assessee as the assessee-in-default in the “lead” assessment year 2009- 2010. This followed former round of sec.154 rectification which stood concluded in assessee’s favour on 28.03.2018. the Assessing Officer thereafter took-up yet another sec.154 rectification in the impugned second round dated 29.11.2019 that the assessee’s foregoing payments duly attracted TDS deduction u/sec.194I of the Act whose non-compliance would liable it to be treated as the assessee-in-default. We are of the view in this clinching factual backdrop that such a course of rectification of the issue involving detailed enquiries would hardly be available to the learned Assessing Officer since as per hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee as the assessee-in-default in sec.201 r.w.s.201(1A), by way of sec.154 rectification in question. The same is held as not sustainable in law in all these assessment years since involving identical facts. Ordered accordingly. 4 I.T.A.Nos.50 to 56/PAN./2023 The assessee’s all other pleadings stand rendered academic once we have already rejected applicability of sec.154 rectification herein in principle. 5. These assessee’s seven appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.03.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [AMARJIT SINGH] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 11 th February, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The PCIT, Panaji 5. D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.