Sheht B.B. Shroff Bulsar Peoples, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,TDS, Valsad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD CAMP AT SURAT (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL A.M.) I.T.A. NOS. 106 & 107/AHD./2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 SHETH B.B. SHROFF BULSAR PEOPLES -VS.- IN COME TAX OFFICER (TDS) VALSAD CO. OP. BANK LTD. VALSAD (PAN : AABTS 4476 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : N O N E RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI LAXMI SR . D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T TWO SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 12.10.2007 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) VALSAD CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) AMOUNTING TO RS.5 18 0/- AND RS.7 065/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODA Y I.E. 19.05.2010. IN BOTH CASES NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 19.05.20 10 WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD IS PLACED ON RECO RD. DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE DATE OF HEARING NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED FROM THE S IDE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR AN APPLICATION OF ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DEC IDE BOTH THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF REVENUE SMT . JYOTI LAXMI SR. D.R. APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT SINCE DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND IT PRESUMES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED TO PROSECUTE BOTH THESE APPEALS. EVEN 2 ITA NOS. 106 & 107/A HD/2008 OTHERWISE SHE POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 201(1A) MAK ES THE PAYMENT OF SIMPLE INTEREST MANDATORY AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) IS NOT A PENAL IN NATURE. THERE IS THEREFORE NO QUESTION OF WAIVER OF SUCH INTEREST ON THE BASIS THAT THE DEFAULT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL OR ON ANY OTHER BASIS. IN SUPPORT OF TH IS SHE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) CIT VS.- DHANALAKSHMY WEAVING WORKS [2000] 245 ITR 13 (KER.); (II) CIT VS.- K.K. ENGINEERING CO. [2001] 116 TA XMAN 390 (KER.); (III) CIT VS.- ASSAM SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTTD. [1996] 219 ITR 324; (IV) CIT VS.- PREM NATH MOTORS (P) LTD. [2002] 1 20 TAXMAN 584 (DELHI). 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOT E THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ITO (TDS) VALSAD CHARGED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR NOT DEDUCTING EQUAL OR UNIFORM TAX AT SOURCE BECAUSE HE HAS NOT MENTIONED DATE OF LETTER WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. BE T HAT AS IT MAY SINCE DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED THEREFORE WE PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE TH E APPEALS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I.T.D. 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. WE TREAT BOTH THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITT ED. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.05.2010 . SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 / 05 /2010 3 ITA NOS. 106 & 107/A HD/2008 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.