M/s. Vinifine Textile Mills, Jetpur V. The Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 79/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 7924914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL , SMC BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 79 /RJT/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09) M/S . VINIFINE TEXTILE MILLS V. ITO, TDS - 1, RAJKOT 4, GIDC, DHARESHWAR, JETPUR PAN: AADFV 2080 Q D ATE OF HEARING : 21 - 0 5 - 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.06. 201 3 ASSESSEE BY : NONE, A.D. ON RECORD REVENUE BY : SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, DR ORDER D. K. SRIVASTAVA : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) - II , RAJKOT ON 18 .0 2 .2013, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WHEREBY UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, RAJKOT U/S 201(1)/201(1A) AND RAISING DEMAND OF RS.2,74,793/ - INCLUDING INTEREST OF RS.90,903/ - IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 21.05.20013. AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEI VED UNDER THE ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURE. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHO HAS FILED THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THERE IS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE MATTER WAS HEARD EX - PARTE Q U A THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF TDS STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WA S NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF RS.1,81,120/ - WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT SOURCE BUT WAS NOT PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE AFORESAID SUM. HE ALSO LEVIED INTER EST AMOUNTING TO RS.90,903/ - U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 2 ITA 79 /RJT/2013 3.1.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND PERUSING THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 201(1) / 201(1A), THE GROUND OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED AS UNDER: GROUND NO.1 : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S. 201(1) / 201 (1A) AND RAISING DEMAND OF RS.2,74,973/ - INCLU DING INTEREST OF RS.90,903/ - IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 3.1.2 THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN APPEAL IS REGARDING RAISING OF THE DEMAND BY ITO(TDS) - 1, RAJKOT, U/S. 201 REGARDING TAX DEDUCTED BUT NOT PAID AND INTEREST U/S. 201(1A). 3.1.3 I HAV E CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ITO(TDS) - 1, RAJKOT AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING TAX RETURNS AND THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION ON PARTY OF THE APPELLANT IS OF NO RELEVANCE IN SU CH A FACTUAL CASE. IF THE APPELLANT HAS DEDUCTED TAX, IT HAS TO BE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ALSO TO COMPENSATE FOR THE NON - PAYMENT OR LATE PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION, INTEREST U/S. 201(1A) HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED. THE APPELLANT SHOULD H AVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED HAS BEEN PAID IN TIME AND THEREFORE INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE. NOTHING OF THIS SORT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT. THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND ITS PAST HISTORY OF FILING RETURNS ETC. DOES NOT HOLD GOOD FOR TH E ISSUE AT HAND. 3.1.4 AS NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF TAXES DEDUCTED IN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT IN TIME, THE A.OS ACTION OF RAISING THE DEMAND U/S. 201 AND ALSO RAISING THE DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S.201(1A) IS HEREBY UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS STATED BY BOTH THE AO AND THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE BUT NOT PAID THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE . THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US IN REBUTTAL OF THE AFORESAID FINDING CONCURRENTLY RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HIS ORDER IN THIS BEHALF IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 3 ITA 79 /RJT/2013 5. AS REGARD S LEVY OF INTEREST, THE LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN AUTHO RITATIVELY SETTLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ELI LILLY & CO (I) P. LTD. , (2009) 312 ITR 225 SC, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) IS MANDATORY AND IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE LEVY OF INTEREST TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE GOVERNMENT. SUBJECT TO T HE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF IS ALSO CONFIRMED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03.06 . 201 3 SD/ - ( D. K. SRIVAS TAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT: 03.06. 2013 BT COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT - M/S. VINIFINE TEXTILE MILLS, 4, GIDC, DHARESHWAR, JETPUR 2 . RESPONDENT - ITO, TDS - 1, RAJKOT 3 . CONCERNED CIT , TDS, RAJKOT 4 . DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 5 . GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT