The Commissioner, Palamner Municipality, Chttoor District V. ITO, 3(5), TDS-1, Tirupathi

MA 37/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2512 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 37/HYD/2014 IN MA NO. 221/HYD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1025/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-3(5) (TDS-1) TIRUPATI VS. THE COMMISSIONER PALAMANER MUNICIPALITY CHITTOOR DIST., TAN: HYD03238E APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SRI RAJAT MITRA RESPONDENT BY: SRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING: 14.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.11.2012 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE DEPARTM ENT SEEKS RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 .03.2013 IN MA NO. 221/HYD/ 2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1025/HYD/ 2012. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION BEFORE THE ITAT, BENCH 'B', HYDERABAD IN ITA NO. 1025, 1026 & 1027/H YD/2013 DATED 27.8.2012 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NOS. 1025, 1026 & 1027/HY D/2012 DATED 13.3.2013 PASSED AN ORDER STATING THAT 'THE LEANED CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 1, HYDERABAD VIDE NOTIFICATION IN F. NO. CCAP/TECH. 1/5C/JURS./2012 DATED 31.8.2012 NOTIFIED THAT THE CIT(A), GUNTUR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION VIS-A-VIS APPEALS EMANATING FROM THE ORDERS OF TDS OFFICERS OF GUNTUR AND TIRUPATI TILL 21.08.2012 ON WHICH DATE THE SAID NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL A RE DISMISSED.' MA NO. 37/HYD/2014 THE COMMISSIONER, PALAMANER MUNICIPALITY ================== 2 3. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE MA, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISCUSS ED AND DECIDED ONLY ONE GROUND I.E., APPEAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION B Y THE CIT(A), GUNTUR BUT THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT AT ALL ADJUDICATED. BY THIS MA IT IS PRAYED THAT HAVING ADMITTED THE AP PEAL, ALL THE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED. THE GROUNDS ARE AS FOLLO WS: 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR IS ERRED IN TAKING UP TH E APPEAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E OM PRAKASH SEVA SANGAM IS ONLY A FACILITATOR AND DOES NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT WHILE DISBURSING SALARIES TO HEALTH WORKERS. 3) THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IF RS. 1,01,306 WHICH IS BELO W THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THE APPEAL IS FILED AS THE APPEAL IS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER T HE CASE. 4) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, SRI S. RAMA RAO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SRI PADAM PRAKASH HUF VS. ITO (DELHI) (SB) (131 ITD 121) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER T O ADJUDICATE UPON SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FILED U/S. 254(2) AND HENCE THE SECOND MA FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON AN EARLIER MA SHOULD BE DISMISSED . THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 3 LAKHS AND CONSEQUENTL Y THE MA IS ALSO TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS THE THIRD GROUND IS LINKED TO FIRST GROUND. HAVING ADJ UDICATED ON THE JURISDICTION, THE TAX EFFECT FOR PREFERRING APPEAL HAS TO BE CONS IDERED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MA OF THE REVENUE IS TO BE DISMISS ED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTUAL POSITION I.E., (1) THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS L ESS THAN RS. 3 LAKHS AND (2) THERE MA NO. 37/HYD/2014 THE COMMISSIONER, PALAMANER MUNICIPALITY ================== 3 IS NO MERIT IN CONTENTIONS. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE MA FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, PALAMANER MUNICIPALITY, CHITTOOR DIST., AP. 2. THE ITO, TDS - 1, WARD - 3(5), RAJASVA BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, VARADARAJA NAGAR, TIRUPATI-517 501. 3. THE CIT (TDS), HYDERABAD. 4 . THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD