Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Bareilly vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 September, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH "B", LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.268/LKW/2014
Assessment Year:2007-08
The Income Tax Officer (TDS) v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.
Bareilly Khambharkhera
Lakhimpur Kheri
PAN/TAN:LKNB06187G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri. P. K. Dey, D.R.
Respondent by: Shri. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A.
Date of hearing: 09 09 2014
Date of pronouncement: 29 09 2014
ORDER
PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on various grounds which are as under:-
1. The Ld. CIT (Appeal), Bareilly has erred in facts and law by accepting new evidence from the deductor without allowing reasonable opportunity to the AO in terms of Rule 46A (3) of the IT Rules, 1962. The deductor submitted before the CIT (A) that he has deducted and paid the due tax and that short deduction/ non-payment is due to mismatch. This fact was not neither produced before the AO nor it was reflected on the ITD System when this order u/s 201(1)/201 (1A) was passed. The CIT (A) has erroneously accepted the claim of assessee and directed the AO to verify the claim by calling for necessary documents for required verification and revise the order accordingly and charge interest on late deposit if any.
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) :-2-:
2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to call for necessary documents for required verification and revise the order accordingly. The processing of TDS statements are fully centralized at CPC (TDS) Vaishali Ghaziabad and the AO has no power to revise the order. The only remedy for the deductor is to file correction statements on-line and get the demand reduced through CPC(TDS).
3. The CIT(A) being a quasi-judicial body has erred further in directing the AO(TDS) to carry out rectifications without understanding the process of rectification/corrections laid down by CPC (TDS). No proof has been submitted by the deductor before the CIT(A) to show that the necessary correction statements have been filed with CPC(TDS). Being a person from the Department, the CIT(A) is required to understand actual processes laid down by the Department and whether directions issued by him are executable or not.
4. By doing so in 1,2,3 above, the, CIT(A) has mechanically disposed off the Appeal, while no implementation of his directions are possible at A.O. (TDS) end. In case of mismatch, the remedy lies in filing of correction statement which are automatically processed by the CPC (TDS). Till correction statement is processed, the AO(TDS) order stands, and cannot be cancelled. That the applicant craves leave to amend/add any one or more of the grounds of appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise.
2. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed its e-TDS return for non-salary in form No.26Q for the first quarter of the financial year 2006-07 on 31.7.2006. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) held the assessee to be in default and determined a demand of Rs.3,95,210/- and interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act") at Rs.2,25,840/-, resulting into a demand of Rs.6,21,050/-.
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) :-3-:
3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the submission that TDS were deducted and paid in time. Therefore, the amount as demanded has been paid and deposited in time at the time of filing e-TDS return, of which details are as under:-
S.N. BSR Code Challan Challan Serial Amount of Tender Date No. TDS Deposited
1. 0001512 06-05-2006 19004 1533
2. 0001512 07-07-2006 15007 393675 Total 395208 Rounded off to Rs.395210 The reason for the Challans reported in the return not found in OLTAS was as under :-
S.No Challan Challan identification Challan identification Reasons for the wrong Amount no (CIN) mentioned in no (CIN) mentioned in furnishing the information (Rs.) E-tds return E-tds return that in e-TDS return should be mentioned 1 1533 0001512 06052006 0020008 06052006 Bank didn't mention the 19004 (BSR Code - 15008 (BSR Code - BSR code on the challan Date - Challan Sr. No.) Date - Challan Sr. No.) and Bank verbally informed the MICR code instead of BSR code.
Further, challan Sr. No. mentioned by the Bank on challan is 15008 whereas it was actually 19004.
393675 0001512 07072006 0020008 7072006 Bank didn't mention the
15007 (BSR Code - 15007 (BSR Code BSR code on the challan
Date - Challan Sr. No.) -Date - Challan Sr. and Bank verbally
No.) informed the MICR code
instead of BSR code.
4. Having carefully examined the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the Income Tax Officer (TDS) with a direction to verify these documents and revise the order accordingly.
5. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the submission that rectification cannot be done by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), as it can only be permitted to be done by the assessee.
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) :-4-:
Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the matter to the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for doing necessary correction/rectification in the return.
6. In response thereto, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that even if any mistake is there in filing of the return, the same cannot be corrected by filing correction statement online by now because the Departmental site (www.tdscpc.gov.in) where TDS returns are uploaded permits for the correction of e-TDS returns for the financial year 2008-09 onwards; whereas the case of the assessee relates to financial year 2006-
07. Therefore, rectification is not possible on the part of the assessee. It can only be done by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) or the other concerned Officer of the Department.
7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we find that the e-TDS returns are being filed online and if any error or mistakes are there, it can be corrected by filing or uploading the correct e- TDS return, but according to the assessee, these facilities are available only in the financial year 2008-09 onwards and not prior to that. These facts were verified from the ld. D.R. during the course of hearing and the same were not disputed by the Revenue. If there is any error in filing the e-TDS and the assessee is not able to correct the same by filing the corrected e- TDS return, necessary correction can only be done by the Department. The process for e-filing of TDS return was developed by the Department and they are solely responsible for developing the software and also to make some arrangement where correction, if any, in the original e-TDS return can be possible. If the assessee has deducted TDS in time and deposited the same with the Department and also filed e-TDS return and if there is any glitch on the part of the server of the Department, why the assessee should suffer for the fault. It is for the Department to make out some alternative arrangement so that correction can be made in the e-TDS return Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) :-5-:
after making necessary verification. The Department cannot escape from the responsibilities of making necessary correction in the e-TDS return if it is not possible on the part of the assessee. If the Department is not able correct the e-TDS return filed by the assessee, as contended by the ld. D.R., then the Department has to suffer the consequences and not the assessee, who has sincerely and honestly deducted TDS and paid the same in time with the Department. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly directed the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for making necessary verification of the documents and if the TDS were deducted and paid in time, he may revise the order accordingly. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of.
8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Sd/- Sd/-
[A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED: 29th September, 2014
JJ:1009
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
Assistant Registrar
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)