MANALI TEXTILES,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (CPC) TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1899/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to consider the matter afresh, allowing the assessee to produce Form No. 26A and other evidence. This form would evidence that the deductee included the sum in its income and paid tax thereon.

What were the facts?

The assessee inadvertently deducted tax at a lower rate than required on certain payments for job work. The tax authorities treated the assessee as in default for the short-deducted amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is liable for short deduction of tax at source when the deductee has already paid tax on the income. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce evidence to prove that the deductee has paid the tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 201(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.R

O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 8, Ahmedabad under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order passed by the Learned ACIT (TDS) – CPC, Ghaziabad for Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15; respectively. Since, both the appeals relate to same issue, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.

& 1900/Ahd/2018 Manali Textiles vs. ACIT Asst.Years.– 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 2 – 2. The assessee has challenged the confirmation of demand on account of short deduction made by the assessee. The case of the assessee is this that it is rather a case of double deduction, since, the deductee has paid complete tax on returned income which includes the amount paid by the assessee.

3.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

4.

The brief facts leading to case is this that the assessee is involved in the business of wholesale trading of bed-sheets and related items and was responsible for making payment for job work undertaken by it one M/s. Danoo Textiles. The assessee was required to deduct tax at source @0.80% up to the limit provided in the lower deduction certificate produced by the said M/s. Danoo Textiles. However, the assessee, inadvertently deducted tax at such lower rate even on certain payments made exceeding the impugned amount and therefore was served with a notice treating the assessee as assessee-in-default in respect of such short deducted amount. It appears from the records that the assessee duly submitted before the Learned CIT(A) that the deductee has already shown the sum paid by the assessee in the income of the relevant assessment year and paid the tax due thereon and accordingly, the case of the assessee is this that further deduction of tax by the assessee would amount to double taxation. Even the said M/s. Danoo Textiles would be deprived of the said credit, since, the time for filing the revised return has also expired. However, such plea of the assessee was not found tenable by the AO. He, ultimately, dismissed the appeal, preferred by the assessee, under s.201(1) of the Act. However, it is the case of the assessee before us that when the said fact was presented before the Learned CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad, the assessee was directed to produce the certificate in Form No.26A from a Chartered Accountant evidencing the fact that said M/s. Danoo Textiles included the impugned sum in its return of income and had paid tax thereon. However, the assessee could not produce the same at that material point of time and asked for adjournment. Ultimately due to paucity of time, the Learned CIT(A) refused to accept such plea made by the assessee. The assessee has filed before us the said Form No.26A issued by the Chartered Accountant and hence, we find for the ends of justice to grant a further opportunity of hearing to the & 1900/Ahd/2018 Manali Textiles vs. ACIT Asst.Years.– 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3 – assessee by the Learned CIT(A) since the said document being Form No.26A is required to be considered in order to make justifiable conclusion whether the assessee is assessee-in- default or not. We, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of the AO with the direction upon him to consider the matter afresh upon taking into consideration the Form No. 26A issued by the Chartered Accountant in respect to the tax sought to be deducted by the payee being M/s. Danoo Textiles and also to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also upon taking into consideration any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. Learned AO is, therefore, directed to proceed in terms with the aforesaid observations in accordance with law and to conclude the proceedings with reasoned order.

5.

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/02/2020 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/02/2020 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →