2012 (10) TMI 494 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Self-contradictory order of CIT(A) s - rejection of appeal by CIT(A) and giving directions given by the CIT(A) to AO - Held that - When in the opinion of the CIT (A) the appeals are not maintainable against the order u/s 200A and the appeals have been dismissed by him as not maintainable, there is no question of giving effect to the order of CIT (A) that A.O.should give appeal effect to these orders within two months of the receipt of the order. As in the grounds of appeal, the assessee has pointed out that there were certain mistakes committed by the A.O. while taking the view that there was delay in deposit of TDS where he submitted that there is no delay in the deposit of the TDS by the assessee. Thus in view of the above, the proper course for the assessee would have been to file the rectification petition under Section 154 requesting the AO to modify the order passed u/s 201(1A).

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A) under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to issue directions to Assessing Officer
- Rectification of order under Section 200A by the Assessing Officer
- Maintainability of appeals against order under Section 200A
- Corrective action by the Assessing Officer on TDS payments

Analysis:
1. Appeal against order of CIT(A) under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue filed five appeals against the common order of CIT(A) for the AY 2010-11 & 2011-12. The grounds raised by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, alleging that the order was erroneous and perverse. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, stating that the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 200A is not appealable under Section 246A. However, the CIT(A) issued directions to the Assessing Officer, which were deemed self-contradictory by the Revenue.

2. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to issue directions to Assessing Officer:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) overstepped his jurisdiction by giving directions to the Assessing Officer in a non-est appeal. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to rectify mistakes within two months, which raised concerns about the extent of the CIT(A)'s authority in such matters.

3. Rectification of order under Section 200A by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer, in the intimation under Section 200A, found delays in TDS payments and imposed interest and interest on interest. The assessee challenged this in their appeal to the CIT(A), highlighting errors in the calculations and due dates of TDS payments. The CIT(A) advised the appellants to file correction statements and cooperate with the Assessing Officer for rectification.

4. Maintainability of appeals against order under Section 200A:
The CIT(A) clarified that there is no provision under Section 246A for filing appeals against orders under Section 200A. The CIT(A) advised the appellants to rectify the orders by filing necessary correction statements before the Assessing Officer and cooperate in the rectification process.

5. Corrective action by the Assessing Officer on TDS payments:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable. The ITAT expunged the direction for the Assessing Officer to give appeal effect to the orders but advised the assessee to file a rectification petition under Section 154 for modification of the order passed under Section 200A. The ITAT emphasized that the Assessing Officer must dispose of such applications in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the ITAT deemed the Revenue's appeals allowed for statistical purposes and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the maintainability of the assessee's appeals against the order under Section 200A. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedures for rectification and emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to address rectification petitions promptly.