The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-I, Chandigarh v. M/S Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Boar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.65 of 2016 (O&M)Date of Decision: 09.05.2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh Versus M/s Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Boar ----Appellant ----Respondent Coram:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar MittalHon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent(s).77777 Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of four appeals, namely ITA Nos.65 of2016, 69 of 2016, 97 of 2016 and 98 of 2016 as the learned counsel for theparties state that the common questions of law and facts are involvedtherein. However, for the sake of brevity the facts are being taken from ITANo.65 of 2016. |The revenue has filed the appeal No.65 of 2016 under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against order dated30.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 789/Chd/2013 for theassessment year 2009-10. It has been claimed that the following substantialquestions of law arise tor determination of this Court: “)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in deleting the penalties imposed u/s 271CA for non-collection of tax atsource u/s 206C ignoring the fact that the assessee hascommitted default to collect the tax at source as required theprovisions of Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the order of the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to theevidence and material on the record of the case andtherefore, perverse. (111)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the order of the Appellate Tribunal is suffering from non-application of mind and is unreasonable and arbitrary.” onAt the outset, learned counsel for the revenue has submittedthat the Tribunal while deciding the appeals of the assessee vide impugnedorder dated 30.09.2015 in para 55 had relied upon its earlier decision, in thecase of the assessee, which reads thus: “eet LA Nos.9/Chd/2013, 880/Chd/2013,881/Chd/2013, 884/Chd/2013 (referred to above) torassessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12respectively....” 4It may be noticed that the revenue had filed the appeal againstthe aforesaid pronouncements decision bearing ITA No.73 of 2016 underSection 260A of the Act along with other connected appeals and the samewere decided on 20.12.2016 whereby the impugned order was set aside andthe matter was remanded back to the ‘Tribunal for fresh decision|Accordingly, learned counsel for the revenue has stated that the orderpassed in the present appeals be also set aside and the matter be remandedto the Tribunal for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearingto the parties in accordance with law. However, this prayer was opposed bythe learned counsel for the respondents. ITA No.65 of 2016 (O&M) 5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing therecords of the cases, in our opinion the present appeals deserve to beallowed as the Tribunal had adjudicated the appeal by relying upon itsearlier decision as cited in para 3 above. Accordingly, the impugned ordersdated 30.09.2015 passed by the Tribunal in each case are set aside and thematters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after affording anopportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.