M/s HSAM Board, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 893/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81030 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAG
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 893 & 894/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S HSAM BOARD V ITO (TDS) NEW GRAIN MARKET PANCHKULA JAGADHRI YAMUNANAGAR RTKH0162C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.S. NAG AR DATE OF HEARING 11.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.11 .2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), KARNAL DATED 21.5.2013. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS DETAILED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN FILED BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S 272B OF IT ACT FOR DEFAULT IN QUOTING PAN OF THE DE DUCTEES IN THE QUARTERLY RETURNS. 3 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT O RIGINALLY WHEN THE RETURNS WERE FILED, PAN OF ALL THE DEDUCTE ES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHICH WERE LATER ON QUOTED AND CORRECTION STATEMENT HAVE BEEN FILED AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO P AGE 52 OF PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE PENALTY SHOULD NOW BE DELETE D. 4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUB MITTED THAT PERUSAL OF CORRECTION STATEMENT WOULD SHOW THA T CORRECTION STATEMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE DEDUCTEES. IN ANY CASE SUCH CORRECTION STATEMENT WAS NOT FILED WHEN THE AP PEAL WAS 2 DECIDED, THEREFORE AT BEST THE MATTER MAY BE SET AS IDE FOR VERIFICATION OF CORRECT STATEMENTS. 5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN CONSISTE NTLY HOLDING THAT IF CORRECTION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FIL ED BY A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE I.E. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR FIL ING QUARTERLY RETURNS, THEN PENALTY U/S 272B IS NOT ATTRACTED. HOWEVER, IF SUCH CORRECTION STATEMENTS IS NOT AVAILABLE THEN PE NALTY MAY BE IMPOSED. 6 IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS STATED THAT CORRECTI ON STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED, THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF CORRECTION STATEMENTS A ND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US IN TH IS REGARD. 7 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.11.2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18.11.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR