9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (4) TMI 310 - ITAT MUMBAI ] Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (4) TMI 310 - ITAT MUMBAI ] while considering the similar objection of Revenue held that such correction was in the form of rectification was very meager which were pitted in the information like PAN or the details of authorized signatory or details of CFO of the assessee. Such changes have no bearing on the amount on TDS / or deposited or likely to be deposited with this Revenue. Such correction made by way of rectification are negligible. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed on legal position / additional ground of appeal. - ITA Nos.246 And 323/SRT/2019 And ITA Nos.247 And 248/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH: 1. Captioned four appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2011-12, are directed against the separate orders pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 91 Taxman 181 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Gokuldas Commission. [2002] 122 Taxman 849 With this background, we humbly request your honour to entertain the ground for the sake of the justice to the assessee. 5. On perusal of records, we find that impugned orders were passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 12.10.2017 and 15.06.2018 respectively. However, assessee s two appeals in ITA No.246 and 247/SRT/2019 filed on 15.05.2019, thus there was delay of 505 days and 258 days respectively. The assessee has filed an affidavit of Branch Manager of Bank of India, Surat. In the application of condonation of delay, the applicant / assessee has contended that assessee is a Public Sector Bank and all the branches are entrusted power relating to that banking business only. The power relating to income tax proceedings and taxation matter are not delegated at the branch level. The Branch Manager has to follow the proper channel for approval and to send the request to Chief Manager / General Operations Department / Zonal Office at different places. The taxation matters are approved by Zonal Office at Vadodara which in turn required further approval from Head Office at Mumbai. In seeking such approval th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... every Branch Manager is not delegated power by Board of Directors to take appropriate steps for filing appeal before various statutory authorities in tax matters. It is the case of assessee-bank that they obtained approval from Zonal Office which was further approved by Head Office of Mumbai. The assessee-bank has also contended that delay in seeking approval was neither intentional nor deliberate. Considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in view that assessee is a Public Sector Bank and interest of public as well as Central Government is involved, therefore taking a liberal approach that delay occurred in seeking the appropriate approval at different levels of hierarchy in the assessee s banking system. Further we are of the view that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are fitted against each other the cause of substantial justice must prevail. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that where technical consideration are pitted against the cause of substantial justice, the cause of substantial justice must be prevailed as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... branches from their customers. The Assessing Officer noted that Tax Deducted at Sources (TDS) was not being deducted under section 194A where Form No. 15G / 15H were submitted by such customers irrespective of payment of interest involved being more than basic exemption limit for respective years. The Assessing Officer found that interest of more than Rs.1.50 lakhs for normal citizens and Rs.2.25 lakhs for senior citizens were paid to various customers but tax was not deducted. The Assessing Officer identified that on the Ghod Dod Road branch, the TDS were not deducted from the interest amount of the following persons:- Customer ID Customer Name PAN No. Interest Amount TDS 7634478 Ashish Varma ABCPV1708R 200094 NIL 7630261 Kunjgali Trust AAATK6189J 250929 NIL 121496103 Revaben Ramanbhai Patel AAMPP3108Q 222525 Nil 7631781 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious anomalies from the record, it was found that the bank statement as taken fixed deposits interest from any customers and has not deducted TDS in the financial year exceeding the basic exemption. The assessee further stated that at the time of deposits, the customers filed Form 15G / 15H for non-deduction of TDS up to basic exemption limit. Further there was no interest payment being exceeded the basic exemption in case the assessee-bank is using finacle software system and did not deduct the TDS on interest payment. The assessee-bank also furnished the party-wise details. 18. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the order of Assessing Officer / DCIT(TDS) with the direction to verify the Form-15G / 15H and in case where the interest payment is below Rs.1.80 lakhs, the assessee should not be treated as default and in the case where the depositors of senior citizens, in their case the exemption limit for assessment year 2009-10 is Rs.2.25 lakhs. Hence, the assessee-bank cannot be held in default. Further in the cases wherein payees had filed their income tax return and included the interest income in their taxable income and the assessee-bank is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the Act, at the relevant time, wherein statement in the prescribed form was furnished, the time limit was two years from the end of financial year in which statement under section 200 was furnished. The assessee-bank furnished last statement of TDS other than salary for financial year 2008-09 is on 22.05.2009. Thus Assessing Officer / DCIT(TDS) was required to pass order on or before 31.03.2012. The Assessing Officer / DCIT(TDS) has passed order under section 200(1) on 30.03.2016, which is apparently beyond the time limit prescribed under 200(3)(i). The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that details of statement of all quarters are filed at pages-7 to 10 of the paper book. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the order was passed beyond the time limit. Therefore, the assessee is liable to succeeds on additional / legal grounds of appeal. To support his contention, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decisions of Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of State Bank of India, Vyara Branch vs. ACIT (CPC) Ghaziabad in ITA Nos. 3419-3420/AHD/2016 and in the case of State Bank of India, Ahwa Branch vs. ACIT (CPC) Ghaziabad in ITA Nos 3421-3423/Ahd/2016 dated 03.02.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement upto 4th May, 2021. Thus, the time period for passing assessment order under 201(3) may be counted for the last revised statement, since the assessee-bank is revising its own statement and it was lastly revised on 04.05.2021. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer / DCIT(TDS) in the year 2016 is well within the time and cannot be treated as barred by period of limitation. 23. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee-bank made a minor rectification in such statement which has no material bearing on the amount of tax liability or TDS with the Revenue which are the amount of correction carried out is also not the material and are quite negligible. Such fact is asserted by assessee-bank itself while making such submission. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd (supra) while considering the similar submission of Revenue has held that such corrections are minor negligible and definite period passing the order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) cannot be revised. 24. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional grounds of appeals. For appreciation of fact, we have already narrated above in para-8 to 10 of this order which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Date of filing last quarter petition AO should have passed order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) Order passed by AO which is time barred 22.05.2009 31.03.2012 30.03.2016 06.09.2010 31.03.2013 14.03.2017 29. Taking a principle of consistency, both appeals of assessee are allowed with similar observation in assessee s appeal ITA No.246/SRT/2019, we allow both the assessee s appeals. 30. In the result, assessee s both appeals are allowed. Coming to assessee s appeal in ITA No.323/SRT/2019 A.Y. 2009-10. 31. The assessee has filed additional evidence with the plea to admit the additional evidence with regard to Form 26A on the issue that as per the First proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, the recipient of interest income has included the interest income in their income and has paid the tax thereon. Therefore, no liability may be settled on the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
