Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of order dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned DCIT, TDS, Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 relevant to Quarters 1 to 4 of Financial Year 2011-12, the assessee has come in this appeal.
Dy. CIT (TDS), Bhopal vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh Assessment year 2012-13 [Financial year: 2011-12 Q. 1 to 4] 2. When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite notices served from time to time through physical mode as well as e- mail address provided by assessee in Form No.
However, Ld. DR was ready to represent revenue/respondent. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the case is being decided ex-parte qua assessee after hearing Ld. DR for revenue.
The case of assessee/appellant, as could be culled out from case- records, is such that it is a co-operative bank engaged in banking business.
A TDS survey was conducted by revenue authorities on 15.03.2016 pursuant to which an order u/s 201(1)/(1A) was passed on 27.03.2019 for Financial Year 2011-12 (Quarters 1 to 4) wherein the assessee was deemed as assessee-in-default for short-deduction of tax at source; accordingly demand of TDS of Rs. 31,46,124/- plus interest of Rs. 30,24,643/- aggregating to Rs. 61,70,767/- was created. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 to AO for rectification of aforesaid order dated 27.03.2019 mainly contending that the said order was time-barred.
However, the AO rejected assessee’s rectification-application vide Order dated 20.10.2020 by stating twin-reasons (i) that the original order dated 27.03.2019 was not time-barred, and also (ii) that the section 154 does not give power to AO to amend the order substantially. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A).
The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal by passing following order:
Dy. CIT (TDS), Bhopal vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh Assessment year 2012-13 [Financial year: 2011-12 Q. 1 to 4] Dy. CIT (TDS), Bhopal vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh Assessment year 2012-13 [Financial year: 2011-12 Q. 1 to 4] Dy. CIT (TDS), Bhopal vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Damoh Assessment year 2012-13 [Financial year: 2011-12 Q. 1 to 4] 5. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue could not point out any mistake in the order of CIT(A). It is further observed that the CIT(A) has, in final Para 5.6, held that the AO should have rectified its order u/s 154. This order of CIT(A) merely requires the AO to pass order u/s 154 and therefore the AO may still pass order after considering the case of assessee in accordance with law. The revenue is not deprived of its right to pass order as per facts and law. Therefore, we do not find any grievance flowing to revenue from the order of CIT(A). Consequently, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal of revenue which is devoid of any merit. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2023.