Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Sriganganagar Zila Dugdh Utpadak ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 June, 2013
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 162 to 166/Jodh/2013
Assessment year : 2008-09 and 2009-10
PAN: JDHSO 4215 B
The ITO (TDS) vs. Sri Ganganagar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari
Bikaner Sangh Ltd., Hanumangarh Town
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Department by : Shri Mahesh Kumar
Assessee by : None
Date of hearing : 27-06-2013
Date of pronouncement :27-06-2013
ORDER
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M.
These appeals by the Department are directed against separate orders each dated 04- 12-2012 of ld. CIT(A), Bikaner.
2.1 An identical issue is involved in all these appeals which were heard together. So these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.2 During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. We therefore, proceeded to decide these appeals ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue on merits.
2.3 The common ground is raised in all these appeals which read as under:-
''The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand without directing ensuring the defaulter assessee to file correction statement due to which the demand is still outstanding in the system and without which the Assessing Officer cannot delete the demand from the system.'' 2.4 First we will decide the appeal in ITA No.162/Jodh/2013 and the finding given in this appeal shall be applicable in all other appeals since the facts are identical. 2 2.5 The only issue involved in these appeals relates to deletion of disallowance of addition on account of TDS and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' in short).
2.6 The facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer analysed TDS on the basis of entries of e-TDS statement reported by the assessee (deductor) . The said analysis revealed defaults i.e. non-payment of the amount deducted, the non/low deduction of TDS at prescribed rates and late payment of taxes. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 201(1A) of the Act to the assessee to show cause with a detailed justification indicating entrywise reasons of the defaults noticed. The Assessing Officer worked out the defaults after expiry of stipulated period of filing the correction statement and raised the demand of Rs. 5,21,350 /- which included interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,63,260/-. 2.7 The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that it had already paid TDS and filled the TDS Return in Form 26Q for the said quarter. The assessee also furnished the TDS Challan for Rs. 4,60,055/- during the first appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that its reply was not considered at the time of passing the order by the Assessing Officer who passed the order automatically, arbitrary and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is against the natural justice. 2.8 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that disallowance of TDS made by the Assessing Officer was not on sound footing. He further observed that disallowance of TDS challan had been made by the Assessing Officer automatically without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that when the assessee produced the TDS challan for depositing Rs. 4,60,055/- then the Assessing Officer should have reconciled it with the bank and after carefully reconciling the same, he should have passed the order. The ld. CIT(A) categorically stated that the Assessing Officer had not considered the written reply of the assessee which is against the law. The ld. CIT(A) 3 further stated that since the assessee had already deposited the tax then it was not justified to demand again the same amount from the assessee. He therefore, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
2.9 Now the Department is in appeal.
2.10 The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of the Assessing Officer but could not rebut the findings given by the ld. CIT(A).
2.11 We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In the present case, it appears that the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition without considering the written reply of the assessee as well as challan vide which tax deducted was deposited for a sum of Rs.
4,60,055/-. In the instant case, the tax deducted at source was Rs. 3,57,630/- and the assessee deposited Rs. 4,60,055/- which perhaps included the interest also and that fact was verified by the ld. CIT(A). In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) categorically stated that the Assessing Officer should have reconciled the TDS challan produced by the assessee with the bank and after reconciling the same, he should have passed the order but the Assessing Officer passed the order and raised demand in arbitrary manner which cannot be appreciated. In such type of cases, the Departmental Officer should act very carefully otherwise unnecessarily litigation starts and the honest taxpayer suffers without any fault which is against the principles of natural justice. Thus by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not see merit in this appeal of the Department.
3.1 In all other appeals i.e. in ITA Nos.163/Jodh2013 to 166/Jodh/2013, the facts are identical as were involved in ITA 162/Jodh/2013 (supra), the only difference is in the amount involved. Therefore, our findings given in respect of ITA No. 162/Jodh/2013 in the 4 former part of this order shall apply mutatis-mutandis for other appeals in ITA Nos. 163 to 166/Jodh/2013. Therefore, these appeals are dismissed.
4.0 In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 27-06-2013.) Sd/- Sd/-
(HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K. SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated 27th ,2013
Mishra
Copy to:-
1.The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The ld. CIT
4. The ld. CIT(A)
5. The DR
6. The Guard File
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Jodhpur
5