The Superintendent (DDO) University Librarian,, Hisar v. ITO(TDS), Hisar

ITA 2521/DEL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 252120114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2521/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant The Superintendent (DDO) University Librarian,, Hisar
Respondent ITO(TDS), Hisar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 28-07-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 26-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G ; NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JM AND SHRI B.C. MEENA AM I.T.A. NOS.2520 TO 2523/DEL OF 2010 ASSTT. YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2009-10 SUPERINTENDENT (DDO) UNIVERSITY INCOME-TAX OFFICER(TDS) LIBRARIAN NEHRU LIBRARY CCS HAU VS HISA R. HISAR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.R.SINGLA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KISHORE B. SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT (DDO) UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN NEHRU LIBRARY CCS HAU HISSAR AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 19.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) CREATING A DEMAND OF RS.29 310/- RS.29.320/- RS.22 020/- AND RS.54 590/- PERTAINING TO ASSTT. YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS OF APP EAL RAISING VARIOUS ARGUMENTS. ONE OF SUCH GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED THE SPEAKING AND REASONED ORD ER AFTER STATING THE 2 FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER DEALING WITH EACH AND EVERY CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL B EFORE HIM BY PASSING THE ORDER AS UNDER: I HAVE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN CASE OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HISSAR BEFORE YOUR HONOUR AND FACTS OF THE CASE OF MY SUBJECT CITED CLIENTS ARE ALSO SAME AND HENCE YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONSIDER THOSE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALREADY FILED IN CASE OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL. CCS HAU HISSAR AS MY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THESE CASES AND DECIDES THE APPEALS ON MERITS. THE VERSION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPEALS IN THE CASES OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HISSAR HAVE BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 3.3.2010 IN APPEAL NOS.525 TO 527/HSR/08-09. AN ORDER U/S 154 WAS PASSED ON 19.3.2010 RECTIFYING THE ORDER DATED 3.3.2010 AND THE DIRECTIONS WERE ISSUED AS : THE DDO IS DIRECTED TO CHECK UP HIS RECORD AND ALSO ASCERTAIN FROM THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE ADDED VALUE OF PERKS OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL IT RETURNS AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME BEFORE THE ITO (TDS) FOR RECTIFICATION PURPOSES. THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISMISSED ON THE SAME LINES AS THE APPEALS OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HISSAR ABOVE AND ALSO WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS IN THAT CASE. IN THE END THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 3 4. ON READING THE AFORESAID ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE PRINCI PAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HISSAR AS RECTIFIED BY HIS ORDER U/S 154 OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE REASON FOR RAISING THE DEMAND BY AO HAVE NOT BEEN NARRATED IN THE SAID ORDER. IN THIS ORDER EV EN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HIS SAR HAS ALSO NOT BEEN MENTIONED. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER OF CIT(A) PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL HAS BEEN A PPEALED AGAINST BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE REVENUE AND IF IT IS SO APPEALE D AGAINST; WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF THIS ORDER IN SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS. 5. IN THIS CASE THE DEMAND WAS RAISED BY THE AO ON THE VALUE OF PERQUISITE ON ACCOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYEES. IT WAS THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT LICENCE FEE WAS BEING RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES TO WHOM ACCOMMODATION WAS PROVID ED BY THE UNIVERSITY AS PER RULES AND THEREFORE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE AS PERQUISITE IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT. ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER EXCEPT BY MAKING A REFERENCE TO HIS DECISION IN THE CASE OF T HE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HAU HISSAR WHICH MATTER IS NOT BEFORE US FOR OUR 4 CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT ON OUR PART TO DECIDE THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER SO AS TO ENA BLE US TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THESE APPEALS B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER DIS CUSSING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AFTER DEALING WITH A LL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE AO. THE CIT(A) SHALL PA SS A VERY WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER SO AS TO ENABLE THE APPELLATE AU THORITY TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN THE RIGHT AND CORRECT PERSPECTIVE IF ANY APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL P ROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE AO. 6. WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH THE LEARNED CI T(A) SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD. VS CIT 293 I TR 226 (SC) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TAX DUE HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE THE TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERE D ONCE AGAIN FROM THE DEDUCTOR SUBJECT TO INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 201(1A) ONLY FOR DELAY IN DISCHARGING THE LIABILITY BY THE DEDUCTEE. THEREFO RE THE CIT(A) SHALL EXAMINE THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER IN CASE THE VALUE OF ACCOMMODATION IS INCLUDIBLE AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF EMPLOYEE THE 5 EMPLOYEE HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAXES AND IF SO PAID THE TAX SHALL NOT BE RECOVERED ONCE AGAIN FROM THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE SHALL ONLY BE LIABLE FOR INTEREST CHARGEAB LE U/S 201(1A) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE. THE LEARNED C IT(A) SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND AFTER CONSID ERING ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 28 TH JULY 2010 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. (B.C. MEENA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JULY 2010 VIJAY COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ROHTAK. 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR