The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Bareilly V. Sahu Gopinath Kanya Inter College, Bareilly

ITA 607/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7994 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.607/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 SAHU GOPINATH KANYA INTER COLLEGE, BANSMANDI, SHYAMGANJ, BAREILLY. TAN:LKNS06274C VS INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BAREILLY. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI O. N. PATHAK, D. R. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY 20/10/2014 DATE OF HEARING 16 /12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 01/04/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. GIT (APPEAL), BAREILLY HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW BY ACCEPTING NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE DEDUCTOR WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN TERMS OF RULE 46A (3) OF THE IT RULES 1962. THE DEDUCTOR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT HE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE DUE TAX AND THAT SHORT DEDUCTION/ NON - PAYMENT IS DUE TO MISMATCH. THIS FACT WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO NOR IT WAS REFLECTED ON THE ITD SYSTEM WHEN THIS ORDER U/S 201(1)/201 (1A) WAS PASSED. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED TH E AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM BY CALLING FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 2 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO CALL FOR NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATION AND REVISE THE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY. THE PROCESSING OF TDS STATEMENTS ARE FULLY CENTRALIZED AT CPC (TDS) VAISHALI GHAZIABAD AND THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE DEDUCTOR IS TO FILE CORRECTION STATEMENTS ON - LINE AND GET THE DEMAND REDUCED THROUGH CPC(TDS). 3. THE CIT(A) BEING A QUASI - JUDICIAL BODY HAS ERRED FURTHER IN DIRECTING THE AO(TDS) TO CARRY OUT RECTIFICATIONS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF RECTIFICATION/CORRECTIONS LAID DOWN BY CPC(TDS). NO PROOF HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DEDUCTOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE NECESSARY CORRECTION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH CPC(TDS). THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED ACTUAL PROCESSES LAID DOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ISSUING DIRECTIONS AND WHETHER SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE EXECUTABLE OR NOT. 4. BY DOING SO IN 1, 2, 3 ABOVE, THE CIT (A) HAS MECHANICALLY DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL, WHILE NO IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS DIRECTIONS ARE POSSIBLE AT A.O. (TDS) END. IN CASE OF MISMATCH, THE REMEDY LIES IN FILING OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WHICH ARE AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSED BY T HE CPC (TDS). TILL CORRECTION STATEMENT IS PROCESSED, THE AO(TDS) ORDER STANDS, AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER BUT THIS CANNOT BE DONE BY INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BECAUSE HE HAS NO SUCH JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DO THE NEEDFUL AT HIS LEVEL. 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE R EVENUE AND WE FIND THAT PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE ONLINE AND THEREFORE, INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) CANNOT M AKE VERIFICATION AND PASS SUITABLE ORDER AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 /12/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR