2014 (4) TMI 772 - AT - Income Tax

Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) Admission of additional grounds - Held that - The ground is not maintainable - survey was conducted on 15.02.2010 and order was passed on 29.03.2010 - The appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), Guntur on 22.04.2010 - The jurisdiction order on which ground was raised and copy placed on record was passed on 10.11.2010 - Since the notification assigning the jurisdiction to CIT(A), Vijayawada was issued after the appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), Guntur there is no reason to consider the Revenue ground thus, the additional grounds cannot be admitted. Deletion made u/s 201(1) of the Act Advance tax paid by the recipient Requirement to made TDS u/s 201(1) of the Act Held that - Assessee could furnish the details of returns filed with reference to first three items - CIT(A) partly confirmed the order there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Relief worked out and excess recovery Held that - The A.O. attached the bank account on 24th January, 2012 i.e., after the CIT(A) has passed the order giving relief, without giving effect to the consequential order and recovered an amount - as per the consequential order passed on 03.05.2012, the net demand payable worked out to only Rs.2,04,333/-. there seems to be no direction for granting the excess recovery thus, the AO is directed to verify the actual short deduction and to determine the amount payable and refund the excess amount collected to the DDO Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) Guntur vs. CIT(A) Vijayawada.
2. TDS deduction on payments made to various parties.
3. Relief granted by CIT(A) on TDS issue.
4. Cross objections by the assessee regarding relief worked out and excess recovery.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The main appeal was against the order of the CIT(A), Guntur, partly allowing the order of A.O. under section 201(1) and 201(1A) raising demands. The Revenue raised a concern about the jurisdiction of CIT(A) Guntur, arguing that the appeal should have been decided by CIT(A) Vijayawada. However, it was found that the notification assigning jurisdiction to CIT(A) Vijayawada was issued after the appeal was filed before CIT(A) Guntur. Additionally, the notice under section 156 did not specify to whom the appeal should be preferred, leading to the conclusion that the issue of jurisdiction was raised belatedly. Therefore, the jurisdictional ground raised by the Revenue was rejected.

TDS Deduction Issue:
The case involved TDS deductions on payments made to various parties for services rendered. The A.O. contended that tax was short deducted on payments made to certain entities. The Ld. CIT(A) considered submissions and facts, concluding that TDS was indeed attracted on payments made to all parties. The Ld. CIT(A) differentiated between liabilities under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) based on the recipients' advance tax payments. The liability under section 201(1) was found not applicable in the first three cases but was upheld for the fourth party. Interest was levied accordingly. The Revenue challenged this decision, but the Tribunal confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, upholding the differentiation in liabilities.

Relief Granted Issue:
The Revenue raised concerns about the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the TDS issue. The Ld. CIT(A) partly confirmed the A.O.'s order based on the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and rejected the Revenue's challenge. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the relief amount granted by the A.O. for one party, necessitating a reexamination of the amount payable. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to verify the actual short deduction and determine the correct amount payable, instructing the refund of any excess amount collected.

Cross Objections Issue:
The assessee raised cross objections regarding the relief worked out and excess recovery. While the Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief, the consequential order indicated a partial grant without thorough examination. The Tribunal identified discrepancies in the relief amount and directed the A.O. to reevaluate the short deduction, determine the correct amount payable, and refund any excess amount collected promptly. The cross objection by the assessee was partly allowed in this regard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal while partly allowing the assessee's cross objections. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate TDS deductions, jurisdictional clarity, and the need for precise calculations to determine liabilities and refunds in tax matters.