Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ito(Tds), Moradabad vs Executive Engineer, Raebareilly on 29 May, 2017
ITA No. 4104/Del./2014
Assessment Year: 2009-10
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH "B" BENCH NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 4104/Del./2014
Assessment Year: 2009-10
ITO (TDS) Vs. Executive Engineer
Moradabad First Construction
Division, UP Jal Nigam
Raibareily
(Applicant) (Respondent)
(PAN )
Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Assessee by: None
Date of hearing 25/05/2017
Date of pronouncement 29/05/2017
ORDER
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 23.4.2014, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals), Bareilly in relation to proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A). In the grounds of appeal Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
"1-The Ld. CIT (Appeal), Bareilly has erred in facts and law by quashing the orders of the ITO (TDS) Moradabad u/s 201(1)/201(1A) and allowed relief of Rs, 14,15,020/-, 19,61,780/- & 6,83,130/- on the ground that he had no territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. TAN of the deductor Page 1 of 6 was lying on the code of ITO (TDS) Moradabad who passed the order in this case. The orders are passed online on the ITD Application, and only the person having TAN on his code can pass such order.
2- While doing so the Ld. CIT (A) has erred further in overlooking the fact that order u/s 201 (1) was printed out of the system (automatic ITD Software) and once order is processed by Computerized System, the A.O. has no option but to sign it and send to the deductor.
3- While doing so in (1) above the Ld. CIT (A) has further erred in overlooking the fact that no order on this is passed by any other A.O. and the shortfall in TDS was therefore rightly brought to tax by ITO(TDS) Moradabad.
4- That while doing so in (1) the CIT (A) has further more erred in directing the AO of the correct jurisdiction to raised demand and bring default, overlooking the fact that no fresh order can be passed by any other AO u/s 201(3) (1) of the IT Act beyond the period of two years."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is, Executive Engineer First Construction Division, UP Jal Nigam, is based at Raibareilly district who had filed the e-TDS return. The JCIT (TDS) Bareilly noted that the said TDS statement as reported by the deductor and the information available as per bank challans details, there are certain discrepancy and after analyzing observe that there is either nonpayment of TDS or there is low deduction of TDS. Accordingly, on the basis of such defect he treated the assessee as 'assessee in-default' u/s 201 also levied interest u/s 201(1A) for sums aggregating to Rs. 14,15,020/-.
Page 2 of 63. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) Bareilly held that due to technical errors and system problem in feeding the challans, the assessee was treated as 'assessee in-default'. He further noted that the assessee is situated in district Raibareilly, whereas ITO TDS, Moradabad has passed the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A), who is in charge of JCIT TDS, Bareilly. He accordingly asked him to provide all the information regarding his jurisdiction over the Raibareili district. In response, the JCIT TDS Bareilly submitted that ITO (TDS) Moradabad has co- terminus territorial jurisdiction with CIT Moradabad and CIT Bareilly. However the ld. CIT (Appeals) observed that he specifically wanted to know the jurisdiction ITO TDS Moradabad upon the district in Raibareilly and not Bareilly and he categorically observed that nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the jurisdiction of ITO TDS Moradabad was over the district of Raibareilly on the date of passing of the order. He held that the proper jurisdiction of the assessee lied with CIT Faizabad and therefore, the order passed by ITO TDS Moradabad who was under
JCIT (TDS), Bareilly, was without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed the order of the ITO TDS.
4. Now before us, a letter has been submitted by the assessee stating that whatever technical default reported was in CPC TDS site has now been rectified by the department and all the challans are matching with uploaded TDS amount. In view of this fact, the assessee could no longer be treating as 'assessee in default', because not only the TDS has been deducted but same has been paid and upload also. The relevant photo copy of the said letter is pasted here with:-
Page 3 of 6Along with the said letter, photocopy of TDS traces has been filed before us along with TDS challans.
5. Now in wake of aforesaid letter and the fact that technical default has been rectified by the department, therefore, we do not want to enter into the issue of jurisdiction and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the said submission of the assessee along with the copy of TDS traces and bank challans and if the said mistake has been rectified, then the assessee may not be treated as 'assessee in- default' and consequently also decide the issue interest u/s 201(1A). The appeal of the revenue is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Page 4 of 6Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARSHI) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29.05.2017
Narender
Copy forwarded to:
1) Appellant
2) Respondent
3) CIT
4) CIT (Appeals)
5) DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Date
Draft dictated on 25.05.2017
Draft placed before author 26.05.2017
Draft proposed & placed before the
second member
Draft discussed/approved by
Second Member.
Page 5 of 6
Approved Draft comes to the 29.5.2017
Sr.PS/PS
Kept for pronouncement on
File sent to the Bench Clerk 29.5.2017
Date on which file goes to the AR
Date on which file goes to the Head
Clerk.
Date of dispatch of Order.
Page 6 of 6