Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Ambala vs Jcit, Ambala on 27 February, 2017

     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
           DELHI BENCH "E", NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                         AND
     SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                  I.T.A. No. 3452/Del/2014
                 (Assessment Year 2009-10)
Oriental Bank of Commerce              JCIT,
Manager,                               Ambala Range
Oriental Bank of Commerce        Vs.   Ambala
Sadar Bazar, Ambala
GIR/PAN: RTKO0072G
           (Appellant)                     (Respondent)

           Appellant by  :     None.
           Respondent by :     Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR.

           Date of hearing      :      22.02.2017
           Date of Pronouncement:      27.02.2017

                             ORDER

PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM:

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by Ld. CIT (A) for assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds of appeal:

1. That the order passed by Ld AO is illegal, arbitrary has been passed in a Haste and has ignored basic aspects and facts of the case and under section 201(1A)/201(1A) by Ld CIT (A) is erred in confirming the same, thus causing undue hardship to the assessee.

2. That The Ld Assessing Officer is not justified in penelty of tax u/s 156 in laws on facts and in circumstances.

3. That the TDS return is not exists on NSDL / TRACES for which penalty is lavied.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

2. Ld. DR at the outset submitted that the demand has been raised under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act due to invalid selection of PAN numbers of deductee's by the automated system due to TDS at the rate of 20% has been calculated Ld. DR referred to comments of Ld. AO reproduced in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been admitted by Ld. AO that short deduction demand has been traced due to the PAN number being considered as invalid, in case of deductee's and has been wrongly created by ITD system.

3. From the order passed by Ld. CIT (A), it is observed that necessary directions to Ld. AO have been passed in order to rectify the system defect.

4. Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate the appeal as it is technical in nature, which could be verified and corrected by ITD system personnel and Ld. CIT(A) has directed Ld. AO to r4ectify the mistake by physical verification of the records.

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2017.

     Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

(PRASHANT MAHARISHI)                       (BEENA A. PILLAI)
  ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                       JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 27.02.2017
@m!t
Copy forwarded to:-
   1. The appellant
   2. The respondent
   3. The CIT
   4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.

5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

True copy.

By Order (ITAT, New Delhi) Page 3 of 4