2012 (10) TMI 365 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Upholds Commissioner's Orders, Emphasizes Correct Filings and Timely Rectifications

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 51(1), Versus M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd., & Others

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT, DELHI dismissed all 25 appeals by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Tribunal ... Rectification of order u/s. 200A/154 - Held that:- As there is direction/ advice by the CIT(A) to file correct statement before the AO(TDS), after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Revenue should not feel aggrieved, as the ultimate purpose is to do justice. Even otherwise, no person should be condemned unheard and the CIT(A) has merely remanded the issue back to the file of AO, therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the order, the same is upheld. AO is directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the respective assesses. The assesses are at further liberty furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate their claim. Since the assesses have been granted fair opportunity, therefore, the time limit of completion within two months, as directed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), is withdrawn - against revenue. Issues:Challenging orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on appealability under section 246A, corrective actions by the Assessing Officer under section 200A, time limit for rectification, opportunity of being heard for the assessee, and completion timeframe for rectification.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT, DELHI heard 25 appeals by the Revenue challenging separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on grounds of perversity and factual errors. The Department raised four grounds to challenge the Ld. Commissioner's decision that the Assessing Officer's order under section 200A was not appealable under section 246A. The Tribunal noted that despite non-appearance by some assessee representatives, the issues were common across appeals and were heard together for convenience.The Departmental Representatives argued that the Ld. Commissioner erred in directing the Assessing Officer and setting a two-month time limit for rectification. On the other hand, counsels for the assessee defended the orders, stating no grievance to the Revenue even if no appeal was filed. After considering submissions and reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal reproduced the relevant portion emphasizing the need for filing correct statements before the Assessing Officer (TDS) and rectifying orders under section 200A/154 of the I.T. Act.The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner's directions aimed at ensuring justice and providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Upholding the orders, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh with due opportunity for the assesses to substantiate their claims. The time limit of two months for completion was withdrawn, replaced by a directive to complete rectifications within a reasonable timeframe. Ultimately, all appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, subject to the specified conditions.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural aspects of rectification under section 200A/154, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing to the assesses and ensuring completion of rectifications within a reasonable timeframe.