BLOCK RESOURCES CENTRE RAJIV GSANDHI SIKSHA MISSION,DHAMDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) @ 20% of Rs.98,360/- i.e. Rs. 19,672/-(which already stands deposited by the assessee, credit whereof has not been given) which is applicable in the case where no PAN is available as per Section 206AA instead of computing the amount @ 1% as per Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Learned CIT (Appeals)-11, Raipur has erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO as the PAN was submitted at later date. Hence, it is prayed that the amount payable as per Section 201(1) be computed @ 1% as provided u/s 194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1, 571/- which has been paid by the assessee merely due to the reason that the same could not be mentioned in the quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3). , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in calculating interest on the aforesaid additions. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs.64,824/- without appreciating that the said deducteee / payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereon and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191,202 and 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal

.” for A.Y. 2012-13 : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs. 8,14,693/- paid to M/s Mohan Caterers on account of catering services, without appreciating the fact that the TDS on said payment amounting to Rs.8,147/- was paid through the head Office under its TAN JBPD00956E (which already stands deposited by the assessee, credit whereof has not been given) and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under its TAN as they have centralized system of deducting TDS, and Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of Learned AO merely due to the reason that quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3) did not contain the details or TDS Statement u/s 200(3) was not filed for which penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) is leviable but assessee cannot be treated as "assessee in default" u/s 201 for such failure as the assessee had duly deducted and deposited the TDS, hence, it is prayed that the demand raised may kindly be cancelled.

2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s Maa Shitla Radio @20% of Rs.1,22,229/- i.e. Rs. 24,446/- (Rs.1,657/- already stands deposited by the assessee, , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 credit whereof has not been given) which is applicable in the case where no PAN is available as per Section 206AA instead of computing the amount @ 1% as per Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Learned CIT (Appeals)-11, Raipur has erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO as the PAN was submitted at later date. Hence, it is prayed that the amount payable as per Section 201(1) be computed @ 1% as provided u/s 194C as PAN of the said deductee is available, the Learned AO has further erred in not giving credit of Rs. 1,657/- which has been paid by the assessee merely due to the reason that the same could not be mentioned in the quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3).

3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s Tarun Electronics for purchase of electrical goods amounting to Rs. 1,54,877/-, as liability to deduct TDS does not arise on purchase of goods. Thus, the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS @20% of Rs. 1,54,877/- i.e. Rs. 30,975/- and the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing non speaking order as the order of Learned CIT(A) is silent on the said issue.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in calculating interest on the aforesaid additions.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of Rs.1,12,187/- without appreciating that the said deducteee/ sum of payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereon and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191, 202 and 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” A.Y. 2012-13 : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs. 11,97,645/- paid to Mr. Deepak Kumar , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 Tamrakar, without appreciating the fact that the TDS on said payment amounting to Rs.11,977/- was paid through the head Office under its TAN JBPD00956E (which already stands deposited by the assessee, credit whereof has not been given) and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under its TAN as they have centralized system of deducting TDS, and Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of Learned AO merely due to the reason that quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3) did not contain the details or TDS Statement u/s 200(3) was not filed for which penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) is leviable but assessee cannot be treated as "assessee in default" u/s 201 for such failure as the assessee had duly deducted and deposited the TDS, hence, it is prayed that the demand raised may kindly be cancelled.

2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s. Jay Tamrakar for purchase of Building Material amounting to Rs.2,11,840/-, as there was no liability to deduct TDS on purchase of goods. Thus the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs.2,118/- and the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing non speaking order as the order of Learned CIT(A) is silent on the said issue.

3. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs. 2,118/- without appreciating the fact that the payee has duly furnished his return of income us 139 and as per first proviso to 201(1), if a person fails to deduct whole or part of TDS on the sum paid to payee, the person shall not be deemed to be assessee in default, if the payee has furnished his return of income u/s 139.

4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable us 201(1) in respect of payment made to Mr. Kamdev Sinha for purchase of Building Material amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, as there was no liability to deduct TDS on purchase of goods. Thus, the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs. 20,000/- (at the rate 20%) and the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing non speaking order as the order of Learned CIT(A) is silent on the said issue. , 34 & 35/RPR/2020

5. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s Mahamaya Hardware for purchase of Hardware Items & Material amounting to Rs. 52,275/-, as there was no liability to deduct TDS on purchase of goods. Thus, the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs. 10,455/-(at the rate 20%) and the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing non speaking order as the order of Learned CIT(A) is silent on the said issue.

6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s Parakh Hardware for purchase of Electrical Items & Material amounting to Rs. 40,852/-, as there was no liability to deduct TDS on purchase of goods. Thus, the Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs. 8,170/-(at the rate 20%) and the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing non speaking order as the order of Learned CIT(A) is silent on the said issue.

7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in computing the amount payable u/s 201(1) in respect of payment made to M/s Ghanshyam Hotel amounting to Rs.36,000/- The Learned AO has erred in computing TDS of Rs. 360/-without passing any speaking order on said issue.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in calculating interest on the aforesaid additions.

9. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned ITO (TDS), Bhilai has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sum of Rs.92,621/- without appreciating that the said deducteee / payee has discharged the income tax liability due thereof and has filed the return of income without considering the provisions of Section 4,191, 202 and 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

10. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 :: 7 ::

3. Since, the aforesaid 3 appeals pertains to M/s. Block Resources Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Patan, the same assessee for 3 different assessment years having common, identical issues, therefore, we are taking up all three appeals together for adjudication.

4. The below mentioned documents are constituting 'Additional evidences under Rule 29 r.w.r. 18(4) of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 for admission whereof, the assessee is making a humble prayer.

Prayer: In view of aforesaid facts, it is humbly submitted that the said documents may kindly be admitted as additional evidences as the same were directed to be filed by the Hon'ble Bench during the course of last hearing. For, Block Resources Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Patan for A.Y. 2012-13 : , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 : , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 , 34 & 35/RPR/2020 :: 14 ::

5. With the aforesaid submissions Learned AR of the assessee submitted that Learned ITO(TDS), Bhilai was unjustified on facts and in law in treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ in respect of non-deduction of TDS without appreciating the fact that the TDS on the said payment amounts paid by the head Office of the assessee under its TAN JBPD00956E. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under its TAN as they centralized system of deducting TDS. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of Learned AO merely due to the reason that quarterly TDS Statement u/s 200(3) did not contain the details or TDS Statement under Sectio 200(3) was not filed for which penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) is leviable but assessee cannot be treated as ‘assessee in default’ u/s 201 for such failure as the assessee has duly deducted and deposited the TDS, hence, it is prayed that the demand raised may kindly be cancelled.

6. The second issue raised by the assessee was pertaining to deduction of TDS @1% u/s 194C of the Act whereas the same should be @20% when the PAN number of the contractor are not available. It was the contention of the Learned AR that since the assessee has submitted the PAN on a later date, the finding 34 & 35/RPR/2020 of Learned CIT(A)-II, Raipur was erroneous in confirming the action of Learned AO for making such additions.

7. Further, the assessee has submitted certain additional evidences under Rule 29 r.w.r 18(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for all the above three years. Since the additional evidences submitted by the assessee were accepted by the Tribunal and such evidences were not available before the authorities below. It was the prayer of assessee that in the interest of justice such additional evidences may be taken 34 & 35/RPR/2020 on record and issues are to be decided in light of facts coming from such evidences.

8. Ld Sr DR, vehemently supported the order of authorities below, however has fairly agreed on acceptance of additional evidence with the request that in all equality in the interest of natural justice such facts should be remitted to the Ld AO for verification to decide the issue denovo.

Order pronounced on the 22nd day of September 2023, in Raipur.