ITO, Jaipur V. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

ITA 98/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5211 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH DHARNIDHARKA CA DHK
• Section: 206AA; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 98/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 (QUARTER-1) THE ITO TDS -3 JAIPUR CUKE VS. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NEEMA KA THANA, RAJASTHAN LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: JPREP0 1510 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL CIT -DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH DHARNIDHARKA, CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/08/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 /08/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 2-11-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (QUARTER-1) RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS A TECHNICAL DEFAULT IN MAKING CORRECTION IN RESPECT OF TDS STA TEMENTS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED AND DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE DEMAND. THE DEMAND WAS RAISED ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG PAN U/S 206AA AS THE CORRECTION C AN BE MADE ONLY UPTO TWO CHARACTERS. HENCE, SUCH DEMAND C ANNOT BE DELETED UNDER THE GIVEN LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES. ITA NO. 98/JP/2016 ITO, TDS -3, JAIPUR VS. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENG INEER, PWD, NEEM KA THANA . 2 2.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS WRONG MENTIONING OF PAN OF DEDUCTEE WHILE FILING THE TDS BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL T HE ASPECTS OF THE CASE WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED TO RE- DISCUSS. HOWEVER, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS TO THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS AS UNDER:- 4.3 IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS A.R. ARGUED THAT T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PAN OF DEDUCTEE IN THE BEGINN ING OF THE YEAR ONLY BUT DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, PAN O F DEDUCTEE WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE TDS RETURN WH ICH RESULTED IN CREATION OF ABOVE DEMAND AND PLEADED TH AT TDS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS OBTAINED PAN OF DEDUCTEE BUT THE SAME WAS WRONG LY MENTIONED IN THE TDS RETURN. THE AO REJECTED THE APPLICATION U/S 154 ON THE LOGIC THAT CORRECTION IN PAN IS MORE THAN 2 ALPHABETS OR NUMERICAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CORRECTED. I FIND THAT THERE IS A TECHNICAL DEFAULT IN MAKING CORRECTION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PEN ALIZED. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DEMAND IF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES ALL EVIDENCE AND FILES NECESSARY CORRECTION IN THE TDS RETURN AS PER LAW. THE AO MAY SEEK NECES SARY CLARIFICATION FOR RECTIFYING SUCH MISTAKES. THE AO IS ALSO FREE TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION FOR MENTIONING WRONG PAN I N TDS RETURN. ITA NO. 98/JP/2016 ITO, TDS -3, JAIPUR VS. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENG INEER, PWD, NEEM KA THANA . 3 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A)S ORDER IS VE RY EXPLICIT TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE OF TEC HNICAL DEFAULT IN MAKING CORRECTION AND FURTHER DIRECTED THE AO TO DE LETE THE DEMAND IF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES ALL EVIDENCES AND FILES FOR NECES SARY CORRECTION IN THE TDS RETURN AS PER LAW. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE SOLITARY GRO UND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-08-20 16 SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ HKKXPUN (LALIET KUMAR) (BHAGCHAND ) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08 /08/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, TDS -3, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, NEEM KA THANA 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 98/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR