sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

ITO, TDS Ward 51(5), Ayakar Bhawan, Dist. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., (Formerly The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.), Shopping Centre, Naraina, Delhi.
November, 11th 2013
                   DELHI BENCH `C': NEW DELHI


                   ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/Del/2012
                        Assessment Year: 2010-11

     ITO,                                       ICICI Bank Ltd.,
     TDS Ward 51(5),                            (Formerly The Bank of
     Ayakar Bhawan,                    Vs.      Rajasthan Ltd.),
     Dist. Centre,                              Shopping Centre,
     Laxmi Nagar,                               Naraina,
     Delhi.                                     Delhi.
                                                PAN: AAACI1195H

     (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

                       Appellant by: Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR
                       Respondent by: None


     All these appeals have been filed by the Department against the

separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi dated 23/05/2012.

2.   Since common issue is involved in all the appeals, for the sake of

convenience, common order is being passed.

3.   Brief facts of the case are that ITO (TDS) had issued computerized

processing order u/s 200A for the financial year 2011-12 for short deduction/

short payment/late payment and interest thereon. The assessee preferred

appeal before ld. CIT(A) who observed that there is no appeal provision u/s

246A for filing appeals against order u/s 200A of the I.T. Act. However, he
                        ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/D/2012                 2

has given certain directions in the order and has required the AO to comply

with them within two months of receiving of the order immediately by issuing

necessary notices u/s 154 of the Act to the assessee and rectifying the

orders as per law. The Ld. CIT(A) has given further directions in the orders.

The Department is aggrieved with the directions given by CIT(A) and has

taken the following grounds of appeal:-

     1. "The order of ld. CIT(A) is perverse and erroneous on the facts and
     circumstances of the case. The CIT(A) on the one hand has dismissed
     the appeal of the deductor assessee by holding that the order passed by
     the Assessing Officer u/s 200A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not appealable u/s
     246A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and on the other hand has given direction to
     the AO to take corrective action to rectify the mistakes in the order
     within two months either through the ITD System or manually;

     2. The ld. CIT(A) has overreached his jurisdiction in issuing direction
     to the Assessing Officer in a non-est appeal;

     3. The ld.CIT(A) has also erred in fixing the time limit of two months for
     rectification of the order passed by the AO u/s 200A of the I.T. Act, 1961
     and directing him to do correction manually. The provisions of the
     Income Tax Act, 1961 do not permit the AO to make any correction in
     the e-TDS returns filed by the deductor assesse as he has been provided
     with very limited powers to modify the data in the e-TDS returns to
     which the deductor assessee is not authorized and which also needs
     verification at his end;and

     4. The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in issuing direction to the AO for
     rectification of the order when onus to file correction statement lies
     entirely with the deductor assessee and there is no role of the Assessing
     Officer in this regard."

4.   Grounds are common in ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/Del/2012.

5.   None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, we find that the

issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Govt. Co-

Ed Secondary School, New Delhi in ITA No. 3910/Del/2012 and others dated
                         ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/D/2012               3

27.09.2012 wherein Tribunal has expunged the directions given by CIT(A),

observing as under:

         5. "We have considered the submissions of ld. DR. Since
         no appeal is provided u/s 246A against the intimation
         issued u/s 200A, therefore, ld. CIT(A) having so held could
         not have given any direction.          An Appellate Authority
         derives its jurisdiction from statutory provisions and,
         therefore, can act only as per provisions of law bestowing
         power upon him. If no such power is there, he cannot give
         any direction. Therefore, the following directions of ld.
         CIT(A) are expunged from his order:
             "The appellants are advised to file necessary
             corrections statement before the Assessing
             Officer (TDS), coordinate and cooperate with the
             Assessing Officer and after rectification. The AO
             (TDS) should give appeal effect to these orders
             within 2 months of receipt of the order
             immediately by issuing necessary notices u/s 154
             of the Act to the appellant and rectifying the
             orders as per law.       If the rectification is not
             possible in computer, the AO should manually
             rectify by passing suitable order in a format so
             that a mass rectification can be completed
             quickly. The AO (TDS) should give opportunity
             of being heard to the appellant before rectifying
             these orders and listening to the grievances of
             the appellant.
             As per the new computerized procedure, the
             appellant     should     go   to     NSDL       website
                            ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/D/2012          4

          and file correction statement
                   or deficient data therefore is no access of AO
                   (TDS) to above NSDL site. He can generate final
                   demand    notice   u/s   156,   and   order   u/s
                   200A/201(1)/201(1)(A) after getting instructions
                   from higher authorities. The appellant can file
                   correction statement any number of times is this
                   process in NSDL site. When his all alternative
                   are exhausted, he should given his calculation of
                   201(1) tax deducted from payments to deductee
                   and interest u/s 201(1)(A) to Assessing Officer
                   (TDS) and pay the final tax and interest
                   accordingly. The he can recover the tax from
                   deductee as per law. Finally, the interest u/s
                   201(1A) is a burden on appellant which is
                   compensatory in nature, if proper TDS is not
                   deducted and paid to Government Account."
     6.   We find that in these appeals also ld. CIT(A) has given identical

     directions and, therefore, we expunge the directions given by ld. CIT(A) in

     these appeals in line with the Tribunal's order noted supra.

     7.   In the result, the Departmental appeals are allowed in terms of the

     aforementioned directions.

          Order pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2013
        Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
  (S.V. MEHROTRA)                                             (A.D. JAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 07/11/2013

                       ITA Nos. 4110, 4111 & 4114/D/2012        5

Copy to:
       1.   Appellant
       2.   Respondent
       3.   CIT
       4.   CIT(A)
       5.   DR, ITAT, New Delhi.
                              TRUE COPY
                                                               By Order

                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions