Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 949/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8390 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KHANNA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.949/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), UNDER SECRETARY PANCHKULA. GENERAL TO GOVT. OF HARYANA, HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT, SECTOR 1, CHANDIGARH. PAN: RTKH01746D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K.KHANNA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DATED 1.5.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 62 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEA L BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH. IN ITS APPL ICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT 2 SINCE IT IS A STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, AS PER ADMINISTRATIVE DELEGATION, AUTHORITY/POWER TO DECID E AND ACCORD SANCTION FOR VARIOUS MATTERS LIES WITH THE C HIEF SECRETARY OF THE STATE. THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE CI T (APPEALS) WAS RECEIVED BY IT AS ON 21.5.2012 BUT IN ITIATION OF ACTION BY GETTING APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF SECRETAR Y OF THE STATE FOR FILING THE APPEAL TOOK TIME AND NECESSARY APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED AS ON 11.9.2012, HENCE THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED LATE DUE TO A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE LEARNED D.R. DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME. WE HEREBY CON DONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3 BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED E-TDS CORRECTION STATEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE DEFAULT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS NON-DEDUCTION OR SHORT DEDUCTIO N OF TDS WAS RS.9,93,880/- AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 20 1(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WA S RS.4,92,500/- 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DEFAULT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,70,090/ - ALONGWITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(IA) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,47,930/-. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS) ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE DEFAULT REGARDING AMOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION AT RS.1,23,790/- ALONGWITH INTEREST THOUGH WAS NOT 3 EXPLAINED, HENCE THE TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.1,85,690/- WAS CONFIRMED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT AS ON DATE, AS PER RECONCILIATION FI LED BY HIM, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.69,150/- REMAINS UN- RECONCILED AND RS.39,420/- INTEREST THEREON. FOR T HIS, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE P APER BOOK, TO SHOW THAT ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES, THE TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE PAYEES AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AS THEIR INCOME. PAPER BOOK P AGES 38, 40, 41, 58 TO 63 WERE SHOWN TO US WHERE THE COP IES OF RETURNS OF THE PAYEES AND CHALLANS FOR DEPOSITING T AX BY THEM WERE ATTACHED. IN THIS WAY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT ON THESE PAYMENTS. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE DEMAND HAS BEEN RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OR NON-DEDUC TION OF TAX ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS AND INTEREST THEREON. I F THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE PAYEE IN IT S TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX HAS BEEN PAID ON THAT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 201 AND THE 4 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(IA) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER WHATEVER EVIDENCES THE ASSESSEE FILES IN THIS REGAR D AND GIVE IT CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT AS PER LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH MARCH, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH