M/s Karnesh Metal Industries, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 623/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8413 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Audit objection; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 623/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S KARNESH METAL INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, WARD-1 , JADADHRI, YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AAFFK9913P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.02.2016 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANCHKULA DATED 09.04.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D AND THEREAFTER ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE AC T PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN AS MUCH AS THERE WAS NO MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WARRANTING ACTION U/S 154 OF T HE ACT AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJ USTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE ISSUES OUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED BEING WHETHER PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40A(IA) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT WAS A 2 DEBATABLE ISSUE BEYOND THE SCOPE AND REALM OF SECTI ON 154 OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITI ON, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,90,000/- APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(I A) ON PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S NEW POOJA METAL INDUSTRIES IN RESPECT OF ROLLING CHARGES WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFI ED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT I N THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 21,941/- VIDE ORDER DATED 27.08.2007. LATER ON, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED RS. 3,48,373/- ON ACCOUNT OF ROLLING EXPEN SES OF M/S NEW POOJA METAL INDUSTRIES, JADADHRI AND NO TDS ON THE SAME WAS DED UCTED. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENTS OF RS. 2,90,000/- BEFORE 21.2.2005 WIT HOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE AC T ON 2.2.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT AS TO WHY THE SUM OF RS. 3,48,373/- SH OULD NOT BE ADDED IN HIS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT TDS ON THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN DEDUCED LATE BUT DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME ALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS PER THE NEW PROVISION APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, IF TDS IS DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME ALLOWED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN THE EXPENDITURE IS AL LOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TDS WAS DEDUCED ON 23.5.2005 AND THE TDS RETURN WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE THE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DIS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE AND ADDED THE LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,48,373/- TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE GROUND NO. I & 2 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLA NT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR IN ORDER DAT ED 23.11.2009. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, I AM IN AGREEM ENT WITH THE FINDINGS BY MY PREDECESSOR ON THE GROUND N O. 1 & 2. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, THE HON'BLE ITAT REMITTE D THE MATTER WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE APPELLANT'S GROUND IS MAINLY ON FT INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON THE BAS IS OF AUDIT OBJECTION ON THE PLEA THAT AT THE TIME OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS WERE SUBMITTED . FURTHER, THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS MAINLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PURELY DEBATABLE AND THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE. 8.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT'S GROUND AND SUBMISSION, I FIND THAT THE AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING DID NOT APPLY THE CORRECT POSITION OF LA W AS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE FROM THE A .Y. 2005- 06, I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE FACTS SH OWS THAT THE APPELLANT PAID RS.3,48,379/- WITHOUT THE TAX DE DUCTION AT SOURCE. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT PAYMENT OF RS.2,9 0,000/- WAS BEFORE 21.02.2005 WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT S OURCE. THE PROVISIONS U/S 40(A)(IA) PROVIDES THE ALLOWABIL ITY OF SUCH EXPENDITURE UNDER TWO SITUATIONS:- I) THE SUB CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE WHERE THE TDS WAS DONE DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND TAX SO DEDUCTED WAS DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SU B SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139. 4 II) THE SUB CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER CASE AND THE TAX IS REQUIRE D TO BE DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF PREVIO US YEAR. SO, THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION IS VERY CLEAR AND HAS TO BE APPLIED UNDER TWO SITUATIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO FOUND THAT PAYMENT OF RS.2,90,000/- WAS MADE BEFORE 21.02.2005 WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. SO, IT IS CLEAR WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT PROVISION OF SUB CLAUS E (B) TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE. SINCE, THE AO DURI NG ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS DID A MISTAKE IN APPLICATION O F LAW, THEREFORE, THE AO RESORTED TO THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 154 TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OF LAW. THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 154 CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY CA N AMEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE MIST AKE WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THROUGH AUDIT O BJECTION BUT THE ACT DOES NOT BAR THE AO NOT TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION. \ FURTHER, THE REC TIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IS NOT ONLY LIMITED TO RECTIFY A CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE BUT ALSO THE MISTAKE OF LAW ARISING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ACT C AN BE RECTIFIED. FURTHER, THE RECORD INCLUDES THE INFORMA TION AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. SO, IN THE PRES ENT CASE ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED DETAILS AND EXPLANATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT I T DOES NOT MEAN THAT A LEGAL MISTAKE WHICH REMAINED FROM P ROPER APPLICATION OF LAW CANNOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 8.2 THE MISTAKES WHICH CANNOT BE RECTIFIED INC LUDES THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONTROVERSY CAN BE RESOLVED ON LY BY WAY OF COMPLICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION OR IF O N A QUESTION CONSTRUCTION ON A POINT OF LAW TWO VIEWS A RE POSSIBLE. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINLY TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE. ON THIS BASIS, HE HAS RELIE D ON THE COURT DECISIONS AS CITED IN PARA 7 (SUPRA). HOWEVER , ON 5 PERUSAL OF THESE DECISIONS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS WERE ON DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASES. IN THE CASE OF VOLKART BROTHERS (SUPR A), THE ISSUE WAS THE APPLICABILITY OF DEFINITION OF WORD ' PERSON' ON THE FIRM WHICH WAS NOT DEFINED IN PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 17(1) OF 1922 ACT. IN THE CASE OF VED PRAKASH MADAN LA! (SUPRA), THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 154 AROSE OUT OF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF AAC. IN THESE CASES, THE HON'BLE COURTS TOOK THE VIEW ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT WERE NOT CLEARLY APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE F ACTS OF THESE CASES AS WELL AS THE OTHER CASES RELIED BY TH E APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 8.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MISTAKE IS AN ERR OR OF LAW, THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND THEREFORE, EVEN IF, THE SUBMI SSION AND EXPLANATION WERE MADE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD RIGHT TO SUBSEQU ENTLY RECTIFY THE MISTAKE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF SAMTEL INDIA LTD. V S. CIT (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 535, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T UPHELD THE RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN THA T CASE, THE REDUCTION IN THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF APPELLATE ORDER IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SO, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT DETAILS AND EXPLANATION S WERE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT BAR TH E AO TO MAKE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STEEL STRIPS LTD. (2011) 11 TAXMANN.COM 361, THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT HELD THAT OVER LOOKING STATUTORY PROVISI ONS IS CLEARLY A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND ON THAT BA SIS RECTIFICATION U/S 154 IS CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE. IN THA T CASE THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OVERLOOKING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS U/S 80VVA OF THE ACT. 6 8.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSED FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE 21.02.2005 WITHOUT DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION SUB CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS CLEARLY APPLICA BLE. THE ISSUE IS NOT DEBATABLE AND THE MISTAKE ARISES FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE REFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED . 5. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE WHILE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPL ICATION OF SECTION 154, IT FIRST BE A CASE OF MISTAKE, AND THE MISTAKE MUST BE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKE SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND PATENT AND SHOULD NOT INVOLVE TWO OPINIONS .ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE SOUGHT TO THE RECTIFIED WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH OR NOT AND IN VIEW OF THE AMENDM ENT MADE IN THE ACT IS PURELY DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THEREFORE, INVOCATION T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AFTER APPLYING HIS MIN D ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI MANJIT SINGH LD. DR REL IED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS. 7 3,48,373/- WITHOUT TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, APPLICABLE AT THE RELEVANT TI ME, THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE BEFORE THE LAST DATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ADMITTEDLY, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESS MENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN APPLICATION OF LAW, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESORTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE AC T AND RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, LABOUR JOB CHARGE PAID TO M/S NEW POOJA METAL INDUSTRIES OF RS. 3,48,373/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN MY OPINION, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MISTAKE IS AN ERROR OR LAW, THE INFORMATION ABOUT W HICH WAS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND, EVEN IF, THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHT TO SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS TRUE THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OVERL OOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLIED AT THE TIME OF FRAMING THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V STEEL STRIPS LTD (2011) 11 TAXMAN 361 (P&H) VIDE ITS JUDGEMENT D ATED 7.1.2011 HELD THAT OVERLOOKING OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS CLEARLY A MI STAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, AND ON THAT BASIS, RECTIFICATION U/S 154 IS CLEARLY AD MISSIBLE. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS AS UN DER:- WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT I N LAW IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 ARE NOT APPL ICABLE TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OF LAW AND THAT PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 80VVA ARE NOT APPLICABLE? 8 WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE ISSUE, THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED OVERLOOKING SECTION 80VVA OF THE ACT. OVERLOOKING OF A STATUTORY PROVISION IS CLEARL Y A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND ON THAT BASIS, RECTI FICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE . IMPERMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION IS NOT DEBATABLE IF S ECTION 80VVA IS APPLIED. THIS BEING SO, THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT RECTIFICATION WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS C LEAR THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISION HAVING COME INTO FORCE W.E. F. 1.4.1984, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85 AND THEREAFTER. HOWEVER, WH ILE APPLYING THE SAID PROVISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984- 85, CLAIM OR CARRY FORWARD OR SET OFF, HAD TO BE CO NSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS IN FORCE DURING THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR EVEN IF IT RELATES BACK TO AN EARLI ER YEAR. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE 8. IN MY OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STEEL STRIPS LTD. REFERRED TO ABOVE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. CONSIDERING THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, I DO NOT SEE ANY GROU ND IN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, I CONF IRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REJECT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL. 9. ALTERNATIVELY, SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THIS CASE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCT ED LATE BUT WAS DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME WITH THE GOVERNMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, AS PER NEW PROVISIONS OF 9 SECTION 40 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH CAME INTO F ORCE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IF THE TAX IS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED WITHI N THE TIME ALLOWED AND BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS DEDUCTED. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE TAX WAS DEDUCTED LATE B UT WITHIN THE YEAR AND DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TDS WA S DEPOSITED ON 23.5.2005 AND THE RETURN OF TDS WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE DEPART MENT. IN MY OPINION, THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH NEEDS TO B E VERIFIED AND DECIDED AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, I REMA ND THIS LIMITED ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.02.2016 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR