Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ward-2(2), Hyderabad V. Sree KTM Trust, Hyderabad

MA 126/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5113 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 263; 201(1); 254(2)

Judgement Text

MA Nos 124 to 127 of 2021 Sree KM Trust Hyderabad Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M.A.Nos.124 to 127/Hyd/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.1088 to 1091/Hyd/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2012-13 Sree KTM Trust Hyderabad PAN:AAGTS1988R Vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward 2(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Sri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee by : Sri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 25/02/2022 Date of pronouncement: 25/02/2022 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’s four miscellaneous applications filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seek to recall/rectification of our common order dated 30.06.2021 allowing the assessee’s main appeals ITA Nos.1088 to 1091/Hyd/2018 thereby reversing the CIT’s section 263 revision directions under challenge. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. Mr. Rohit Mujumdar vehemently contended during the course of hearing that our impugned order has apparently erred in law and on facts in invoking Section 263 Explanation(1)(c) whilst reversing CIT’s revision direction whereas the issue of TDS default had not been considered in the CIT(A)’s order dated MA Nos 124 to 127 of 2021 Sree KM Trust Hyderabad Page 2 of 2 25.09.2017. The Revenue’s case in the light of all these records is that since the Assessing Officer had not raised any demand u/s 201(1) of the Act, the CIT had rightly proceeded to exercise his revision jurisdiction u/s 263; which in turn, has been wrongly reversed in our order. We find no apparent mistake since the CIT (A)’s order dated 25.09.2017 had clearly dealt with the TDS default amount u/s 201(1) giving a categorical finding that there was no such default in assessee’s case. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (S.C) and ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd (2008) 305 ITR 227 (S.C) that our impugned order does not suffer from any apparent mistake. The Revenue fails in all the instant miscellaneous applications. 3. These Revenue’s Miscellaneous applications are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25 th February,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 25 th February, 2022. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Income Tax Officer (TDS) Ward 2(2) Hyderabad 2 Income Tax Officer TDS Ward 2(2) Hyderabad 3 CIT (TDS)- Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – TDS, Hyderabad 5 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order