Ajanta Offset & Packagings Limited, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 903/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9594 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 133A; 201(1); 201; 192

Judgement Text

1 ITA nos. 903, 904 &905/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 903, 904 & 905/DEL/2021 Asstt.Yrs: _2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ajanta Offset &Packagings Ltd., C-14, Floor-C, Ansal Plaza Vaishali, Ghaziabad-201010 PAN- AAACA0245Q Vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Faridabad APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by ShriMayank Thakur Department represented by Sh. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT DR Date of hearing 29.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.09.2022 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: The Assessee has preferred the instant appeals against separate ordersdated 24.03.2020 impugned passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Faridabad (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2 ITA nos. 903, 904 &905/Del/2021 2. As the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are exactly similar excepting variation in quantum, therefore, for brevity we are deciding all the appeals together by this composite order by quoting the facts of ITA no. 904/Del/2021 for assessment year 2013-14,. 3. A survey operation u/s 133A of the act was conducted in the case of the Assessee on 3.12.2014 wherein it was found that though the Assesseeis having two units at Faridabad and Delhi, however, the Assessee had deducted the Tax on payments belonging to the Faridabad unit only and no TDS was deducted in respect of Delhi unit . It was also found that the Assessee had also not deposited the tax deducted for the 4 th quarter of the financial year 2012-13. Consequently, the Assessee was show caused, who in response failed to explain the reason and also failed to file the details/evidences. Therefore, the AO determined the liability u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 36,43,653/-. 4. The Assesseebeing aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who sought remand reports from the AO. The AO vide remand reports dated 12.2.2018 and 4.3.2020 submitted before the learned Commissioner that the Assessee had not furnished separate trial balances for Delhi and Faridabad units and it has been found that no TDS return has been furnished for Delhi unit. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner affirmed the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act passed by the AO by concluding as under: 3 ITA nos. 903, 904 &905/Del/2021 “10. After considering the facts of the case and material on record, it is noted that reasonable opportunity has been provided to the appellant by the AO as well as during the remand proceedings to explain the various grounds of appeal taken. It has been found that no verifiable material has been brought on record by furnishing separate trial balances of Delhi Unit and Faridabad Unit. Thus, the appellant has failed to bifurcate various expenses/payments shown in the P & L Account between Delhi Unit and Faridabad Unit. Moreover, the AO has found that no TDS return has been separately furnished by the appellant in respect of payments/expenses corresponding to Delhi Unit. The onus was on the appellant to specifically establish that expenses incurred in the books of account of M/s Ajanta Offset & Packaging Ltd. have been subject to proper TDS deductions by splitting the same between Faridabad and Delhi Units. No separate books of accounts for both the units have been furnished before the AO. However, no satisfactory evidence has been brought on record to establish the same. Similarly, in respect of salary claimed in the P & L Account, no specific month-wise details in respect of employees have been furnished to corroborate the correctness of TDS deducted u/s 192 of the Act. Keeping in view all these facts and discussion, it is held that the appellant has miserably failed to establish and support the various grounds of appeal taken. The order of the AO is thus upheld and all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 5. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal. 6.Though the Assessee during the course of hearing of this appeal sought adjournment, however, we, by realizing that in the instant case the order dated 4.2.2020 has been passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi bench, Court No. IV at New Delhi in C.P. No. IB-1526/ND/2019,proceeded to decide the appeal. 4 ITA nos. 903, 904 &905/Del/2021 7. Perused the orders passed by the authorities below. It reveals that the AO in its remand report dated 4.3.2020 filed before the Ld. Commissioner, mentioned the facts “that on 18.2.2020 a letter was received from Ajanta Offset & Packaging limited along-with the order of Hon’ble NCLT, Delhi Bench, whereby the NCLT has appointed one Mr. Satya Narayan Guddeti as the Interim Resolution professional. Further a letter has been issued to Mr. Satya Narayan Guddeti for fixing the case on 28.02.2020, but no one attended nor any reply received from.” This fact goes to show that though the learned Commissioner got the information with regard tocommencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) in the case of the Assesseeand the appointment of Interim Resolution professional by the Hon’ble NCLT in IB-1526/ND/2019 vide dated 4.2.2020 (supra), however, still the learned Commissioner proceeded with the appeal of the Assessee and decided the same without giving any opportunity to the Interim Resolution professional Mr. Satya Narayan Guddeti and considering the order of the Hon’ble NCLT . Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are setting aside the impugned order passed by the and remanding the case to the file of learned Commissioner for decision afresh by considering the order of the NCLT, as referred to above and by giving an opportunity of being heard to the Interim Resolution professional Mr. Satya Narayan Guddeti and the Assessee as well. The Assessee is directed to provide a copy of the order of the NCLT and details of Interim Resolution professional to the learned Commissioner. Consequently the appeal under consideration is liable to be allowed. 5 ITA nos. 903, 904 &905/Del/2021 8. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI