Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA :
Date of hearing : 13/06/2016. Date of order : 14/06/2016. O R D E R
This is revenue’s appeal against the order dated 4.2.2014, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-Bareilly, relating to AY 2008-09.
Brief facts of the case are that the AO passed order u/s 201/201(1A) in respect of TDS return in form 24Q in respect of 4th quarter of the financial year 2007 vide order dated 25.3.2011. The short deduction was computed at Rs. 3,14,650/- u/s 201 and interest u/s 201(1A) was computed at Rs.
2 ITA 2776/Del/2014 1,20,120/-. Thus, total liability of Rs. 4,34,70/- was determined. Similarly, in respect of FY 2008-09 the short deduction u/s 201 was computed at Rs. 3,88,590 and interest u/s 201(1A) was computed at Rs. 1,16,520/- vide order dated 25.3.2011.
The assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and after considering written submissions filed by assessee ld. CIT(A), after taking into consideration the grounds of appeal filed by assessee, in which it was claimed that it paid the due tax in time, directed the ITO(TDS) to make factual verification and pass suitable order. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the ITO(TDS).
4. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) the department is in appeal before us and has filed following grounds of appeal:
l. 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 Rules1962. 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 neither produced before the AO nor it was reflected on the ITD System when this order u/s 201(1)/201 (1A) was pa sed. The CIT (A) has erroneously accepted the claim of assessee and directed the AO to verify the claim by calling for necessary 3 ITA 2776/Del/2014 documents for required verification and revise the order accordingly.
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.
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 anyone or more of the grounds of appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise.
5. I have considered the submissions of ld. DR and do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) because he has merely
4 ITA 2776/Del/2014 directed the ITO(TDS) to do the needful after verification of the assessee’s plea that full compliance has been made in regard to TDS and the tax has been duly deposited. Accordingly, revenue’s appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronouncement in open court on 14/06/2016.