SANT TUKDOJI GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 2(4), BHANDARA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
[THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Sant Tukodji Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha The Income Tax Officer Maryadit, Gondia-441701 (TDS), Ward – 2 (4), PAN AANAS1767Q 2nd Floor, Ganga Motor C/o. KPRK & Associates, Building, Z.P. Chowk, vs. 503-504, “Gokul”, 3rd Floor, Bhandara, Maharashtra. Near Darodkar Square, 61, Central Avenue, Nagpur. PIN – 440 032. Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.K. Thakkar For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s separate Din and Orders No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043295731(1); 1043295869(1); 1043295761(1); all dated 02.06.2022, for the A.Yrs. 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, respectively, involving proceedings u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges learned lower authorities action treating it as the “assessee in default” for the purpose of recovering TDS and consequential interest thereupon in proceedings u/s.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Act. Learned NFAC’s impugned lower appellate discussion affirming the assessment(s) findings to its effect reads as under :
3 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022
4 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022
5 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022
6 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022
This leaves the assessee aggrieved.
Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands in support and against the assessee’s pleadings challenging the impugned TDS demands. The assessee has been pleading all along that once the corresponding collection agents bringing it the business of deposits, are not proved to have been assessed to tax for their respective taxable income(s), it could not be treated as the assessee in default for having not deducted TDS on the impugned commission payments in these three financial years. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the said assessee’s agents have denied their taxability by way of duly sworned in affidavits remains un-rebutted in the assessment findings or in the NFAC’s detailed discussion extracted hereinabove. That being the clinching fact emerging from the case files, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) that TDS provisions do not apply in absence of the income liable to be assessed in the concerned recipients’ hands. The assessee succeeds in these instant identical sole substantive grounds in very terms.
7 ITA.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 No other ground or argument has been raised before us.
These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.202, 203 & 204/NAG./2022 are accepted in foregoing terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.02.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 29th February, 2024 Satish/- Copy to 1. The appellant. 2. The respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The Pr. CIT, Nagpur concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
