Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit., Belgaum v. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward, Belgaum

ITA 110/PAN/2014 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11024114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAAJS0517J
Bench Panaji
Appeal Number ITA 110/PAN/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit., Belgaum
Respondent Income Tax Officer TDS Ward, Belgaum
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 13-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 13-11-2014
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 108 TO 111 /PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13) SHRI SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT SHRI MAHALAXMI COMPLEX BELGAUM ROAD BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM PAN:AAAJS0517J (APPELLANT) VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS WARD BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : PRAVEEN P. TALIKAR ADV. RESPONDENT BY : RATNAKAR LD. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 13/11 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /11/2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA (JM) ALL THESE APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BELGAUM DATED 02 ND SEPTEMBER 2013 FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 TO A.Y.2012 - 13. THEREFORE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ABOVE ALL APPEALS. (I) THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX MAY BE QUASHED/SET ASIDE FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE FACTS AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. KINDLY CONSIDER OUR PRAYER ON THIS MATTER. (II) THAT THE HONB LE ITAT IS PRAYED TO CONSIDER PANS OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT TAKEN FOR TDS AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR AND AMENDMENTS TO TDS PROVISIONS. (III) THAT THE HONBLE ITAT IS PRAYED TO DELETE AMOUNT PAID TO THE HARVESTERS (AGRICULTURISTS) FROM THE TDS LIABILITY. 2 . ITA NO. 108 TO 111/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13) (IV) THAT THE HONBLE ITAT IS PRAYED TO DIRECT THE ITO (TDS) WARD BE L GAUM FOR APPLYING CORRECT RATE OF TDS BASED ON FACTS AND PASS A JUSTIFIABLE ORDER AS PER INCOME - TAX ACT. (V) THAT HONBLE ITAT IS AL SO PRAYED TO DIRECT FOR REFUNDING TDS COLLECTED FOR EARLIER FINANCIAL YEARS 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 WITHOUT ANY VALID BASIS. 3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OP. SUGAR FACTORY ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF SUGAR. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 07.08.2012 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD BELGAUM TO VERIFY THE COMPLIANCE WITH TDS PROVISIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE INC OME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE TDS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING THROUGH THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO MAKE TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C/194H ETC. OF THE ACT. I. PAYMENT MADE TO BOND HARVESTERS LIAB LE FOR TAX DEDUCTION U/S. 194C II. PAYMENTS MADE TO BOND TRANSPORTERS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION U/S. 194C III. PAYMENTS MADE TO BOND HARVESTERS AS COMMISSION LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 194H IV. PAYMENTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES AS SALAR Y LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION U/S. 192. V. PAYMENTS MADE TO C - QUAD COMPUTERS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION U/S. 194J THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND DEFAULT AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 FOR ALL THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS DEDUCTION U/S. 201 (1) /201(1A) WAS RAISED. 4. THE MATTER CA RRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER. 5. THE CASE WERE POSTED FOR HEARING ON THE 12 TH MARCH 2013. ON THE DATE OF HEARING THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON THE 22 ND MARCH 2013. EVEN ON THAT DATE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASES WERE AGAIN FO R HEARING ON THE 27 TH JUNE 2013. SRI N.A. CHARANTIMATH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND FILED THE AUTHORITY LETTER. HE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE CASES WERE 3 . ITA NO. 108 TO 111/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13) ADJOURNED TO 17 TH JULY 2013. AGAIN ON THAT DAY THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT. FINALLY THE CASES WERE POSTED FOR HEARING ON THE 20 TH AUGUST 2013 AND THE HEARING NOTICES WERE DISPATCHED ON THE 30 TH JULY 2013. AGAIN ON THIS DAY NOBODY ATTENDED THE HEARING. THE ABOVE EVENTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE APP ELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN ATTENDING THE HEARINGS. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLANTS SIDE - EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 5.1 ON THE D AY OF FINAL HEARING I.E. ON THE 20 TH AUGUST 2013 SRI. R.K.TIGADI INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD BELGAUM ATTENDED AND THE CASE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH HIM. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO NARRATED BY THE OFFICER PRESENT NO TDS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE AS SESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO HARVEST CONTRACTORS TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS SALARY PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEE ETC FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THE FAILURES ON ITS PA RT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. FURTHER THE APPELLANT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM TDS PROVISIONS AS CLAIMED BY IT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS FURTHER THE ITO TDS WARD BELGAUM DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS INFORMED THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DEMAND HAS BEEN RECOVE RED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS ALSO BEING RECOVERED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 194C 194H 192 AND 194J. MORE - OVER THE APPELLANT HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER FOR THE DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY IT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) MERITS TO BE CONFIRMED. 7. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT F OR ALL THE FOUR YEARS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFO RE US THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WAS DISMISSED AND ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT LIABLE FOR TDS AS THE HARVESTERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE PAYMENT TO THE TR ANSPORTERS AND THEIR PAN NUMBERS WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE ACTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCEDED IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT ASSESSE E HAS MADE PAYMENT TO HARVESTING PEOPLE WHO ARE EXEMPTED FROM TDS AND ASSE SSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT U/S. 194C BELOW THE LIMIT AND IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THE PAYMENT MADE TO CONTRACTORS BUT IF THE PAN FROM TRANSPORTER IS COLLECTED AND 4 . ITA NO. 108 TO 111/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13) PRODUCED BEFORE AUTHORITY THEN THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. 5.1. HAVING HEA R D BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS ASSESSEE STATED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO HARVESTING PEOPLE. THE HARVESTIN G PEOPLE ARE F ARMERS AND THEY DO NOT COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND ALL PAYMENTS MADE BELOW THE LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 194C . THE COMMISSIONER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE PANS FROM TRANSPORTERS IF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE THE C IT(A). WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO VE RIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE CIT(A) TO DISPOS E THE APPEAL WITHIN REASONABLE TIM E. IF THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT CO - OPERATE WITH THE CIT(A) THE CIT(A) IS A LIBERTY TO PASS THE ORDER AS PER LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 . 11.2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 8 .11 .2014 P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER