Kishore Bhagwandas Sadhwani, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Gaziabad

MA 80/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4851 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D, AM. M.A. NO. 80/AHD/2016 ITA NO.1904/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2014-15 KISHORE BHAGWANDAS SADHWANI, S-5, SINDHI MARKET, REVDI BAZAR, AHMEDABAD. VS. DCIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ALSPS 5788C APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 7/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/10/2016 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.11.2015. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APP LICATION THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT TDS STATEMENT U/S. 200(3) OF THE ACT WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. LD. CIT(A) (CPC-TDS) HAS INT IMATED THE LEVY OF FEES BY E-MAIL AS WELL AS BY NOTICE. THE FEES WAS L EVIED FOR THE FOUR QUARTERS UNDER SECTION 234E AGGREGATING TO RS.1,16, 185/-. WHEN THIS DISPUTE TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL THEN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SEC.200A M.A. NO.80/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.1904/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 2 OF THE ACT NOWHERE AUTHORIZES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY FEES U/S 234E WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 200A OF THE AC T. 2. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT FOR THE FOUR QUAR TERS ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FILED FOUR APPEALS BECAUSE IT HAS FIL ED FOUR APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS AL LOWED APPEAL FOR QUARTER NO.1 AND DELETED THE FEE OF RS.47,820/-. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BEN CH FOR BUTTRESSING ITS CONCLUSION. IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THE ASSESS EE HAS PLEADED THAT SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED FOUR APPEALS BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONE APPEAL. THE TRIBU NAL HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY NOT ENTERTAINING ONE APPEAL FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE NO ONE IS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR WE HAVE GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/S 25 4(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN A MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS AP PARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTAB LISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS BY RAISING THE POI NTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS CANDID WHEN IT HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOUR APPEALS AGAINST EACH QUARTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE THEY ARE INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EACH QUARTER. T HERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR AS SUCH COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. A S FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A COMMON OR DER, THEREFORE, M.A. NO.80/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.1904/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 3 ONLY ONE WOULD LIE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED IT IS PATENTLY BASED ON WRONG FOUNDATION. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES SOMETIMES DECIDE NUMBER OF CAUSES BY A COMMON ORDER BUT EACH PARTY HAS AN INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT ORDER BY EXECUTION OF THE ORDER AS WELL AS CHALLENGING THAT ORDER IN AN INDEP ENDENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. LET US TAKE AN EXAMPLE. THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY ACQUIRE 1000 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS. THE LAND OWNERS MIGHT NOT BE SATISFIED WITH THE COMPENSATION AWARDE D BY THE GOVERNMENT AND FILED REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND A CQUISITION ACT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR COMPENSATION AT THE END O F CIVIL COURT, THE LD. CIVIL COURT DISPOSED OF THE REFERENCES OF COMPE NSATION BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. THE EACH CLAIMANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ENHANCE COMPENSATION BY EXECUTING THAT ORDER QUA THE LAND O WNED BY HIM. SIMILARLY IF, THE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT AWARD THEN EACH LAND OWNER WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CHALLENGE THE ORDE R OF THE CIVIL COURT IN HIGHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. HIGH COURT QUA THE LA ND OWNED BY HIM. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD FI LE ONE APPEAL AND THAT WILL EFFECT ALL THE RESPONDENT LAND OWNERS . SIMILARLY IF ONE OF THE LAND OWNER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE AWARD HE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE THE AWARD QUA HIS LAND ONLY. THE COMMON ORDER WOULD BE EXECUTABLE QUA EACH PARTIES WHO ARE PARTIE S TO THE LITIGATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. M.A. NO.80/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.1904/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 4 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 13/10/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 7/10/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 7-10/10/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 13/10/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: