9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountant Member For The Appellant : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR, Sh. Zain Raja, Adv, Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA, Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. For The Respondent : Sh. Sujit Kumar, ORDER PER BENCH. This batch of seven appeals comprises two appeals of the Revenue and five appeals of the tax deductors. All the appeals emanate from the different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act by the Income Tax Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Tax deducted at source)/ Centralised Processing Centre (Tax deducted at source). Since the issues involved in all the appeals are related to the intimation u/s 200A of the Act, all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Now, we take up the Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1930 1931 /Del/2104. The grounds of the appeal are identical in both the appeals, and therefore, the grounds of appeals of ITA No. 1930 are only reproduced as under: 1. The ld. CIT(Appeals), Bareilly has erred in facts and law by accepting new evidence from the deductor without allowing reasonable opportunity to the AO in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reilly challenging the sum raised on account of short deduction, late payment fee and interest charged etc. Before the learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the deductor claimed that it has already paid all the taxes in time and there was no short deduction on the part of the deductor. The learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in both the appeals, directed the ITO (TDS) to carry out necessary verification and pass suitable orders. Against the orders of the learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred these appeals. 4. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative appeared on behalf of one the appellant in batch of cases heard, brought to our notice that no appeal under section 246A of the Income-tax Act was maintainable before the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act prior to 01.07.2010 as held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench in the case of ITO Ward 50(4) Vs. Maruti Insurance Agency Network Ltd and others in ITA No. 3983 to 3995, 3997 to 4000, CO No. 426, 4001 2, 4050 to 4052 /Del/2012 disposed off by a consolidated order dated 23.05.2014 and pleaded for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue should not feel aggrieved, as the ultimate purpose is to do justice. Even otherwise, no person should be condemned unheard and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has merely remanded the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the order, and the same is upheld. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the respective assesses. The assesses are at further liberty furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate their claim. Since the assesses have been granted fair opportunity, therefore, the time limit of completion within two months, as directed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), is withdrawn. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to complete within reasonable time/as soon as possible. 7. Finally, subject to the above rider, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. 5. Relying on the above findings, the Tribunal in the case of ITO, Ward 50(4) Vs. Maruti Insurance Agency Network Ltd. and Others (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed under section 206AA. 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that in the aforesaid cases, tax is deductible source at the rates prescribed under DTAA and the intimation issued u/s 200A be quashed. Ground Ill: General The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 9. The facts in brief in the appeals are that quarterly returns of tax deducted at source (TDS) filed by the deductor were processed by the ITO (International Taxation), Ward-1, New Delhi and an intimation u/s 200A of the Act was issued on 03/11/2011 in case of both the returns raising a sum as payable towards short deduction and interest thereon as under : ITA No Financial Year Quarter Date of filing Form No. Sum payable 2605/Del/15 2010-11 Q1 14th July,2010 27Q Rs.5,27,040 2606/Del/15 2010-11 Q2 13th October,2010 27Q Rs.42,07,080 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued on 03//11/2011, which is prior to 01.07.2012 i.e. the date from when the intimation u/s 200A has been made appealable before the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under 246A of the Act. In view of the facts, the decision is squarely applicable in present appeals before us. The learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has already relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd and others in ITA Nos. 4028-4049 4053-4054 4057 /Del/2012 disposed of by the consolidated order dated 01st October, 2012 reported in 2012(10)TMI 365-ITAT Delhi, which has been followed in the decision of the ITO Ward 50(4) Vs. Maruti Insurance Agency Network Ltd and others( supra). Hence, we are of opinion that no interference is required in the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal). Therefore, we hold that the there is no error in finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) that no appeal is maintainable u/s 246A to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) against the intimation issued u/s 200A of the Act by the ITO on 03/11/2011 in the case of the deductor. Accordingly, the first ground raised in the appeals is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision under s. 200A, no such levy could be effected .. 16. On the issue under consideration before us, the ITAT Chennai A Bench in the case of Smt. G. Indhirani and others Vs. DCIT, In ITA Nos.1019, 1020 and 1021/Mds/ 2015, ITA No.1089/Mds/2015,ITA No.1090/Mds/2015, ITANo.1091/Mds/ 2015 and ITA No.1092/Mds/2015 reported in 245 ITR (Trib) 439 (Chennai) has held as under:- In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under section 234E while processing the statement and making adjustment under section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired. Accordingly, the intimation under section 200A as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in so far as levy of fee under section 234E is set aside and fee levied is deleted. However, the order adjustment made by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
