ITO WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. MVVS-ALIENS(JV), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 577/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 October 2023AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, stating that the payee had declared the income and paid taxes. It noted that as of the decision date, the Delhi High Court's ruling was still valid and no contrary view from the Apex Court existed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,78,46,398/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that the payee had declared the income and paid taxes, relying on a Delhi High Court decision which was later subject to a Special Leave Petition by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of addition under Section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A) was justified, considering the payee had declared and paid taxes on the impugned amount, despite a pending SLP by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR
Hearing: 19/10/2023

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Challenging the order dated 09/09/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of MVVS – ALIENS (JV) (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2011-12, Revenue preferred this appeal.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the addition of Rs. 6,78,46,398/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in the order dated 01/03/2018, under section 40(a)(ia) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) is deleted by the learned CIT(A) in appeal holding that the impugned payment made by the assessee to M/s Aliens Developers Pvt. Ltd., was declared by the payee in the Income Tax returns and the taxes were also paid. Learned CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd., 61 taxmann.com 45 (2015), wherein it was held that 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is a declaratory in the curative and has retrospective effect from 01/04/2005. On this aspect, learned Assessing Officer recorded a finding that the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd (supra) has not attained the finality in view of the Special Leave Petition granted in favour of Revenue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 5 (SC).

3.

Aggrieved by the act of the deletion made by the learned CIT(A), Revenue preferred this appeal and learned DR contended that as rightly pointed out by the learned Assessing Officer the issue has not reached finality in view of the grant of special leave by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4.

Per contra, learned AR submitted that as on the date the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd. (supra) holds good and there is no decision to the contrary.

5.

We have gone through the orders of the authorities below. Insofar as the facts are concerned there is no dispute that the payee M/s Aliens Developers Pvt. Ltd., declared the payment from the assessee in the return of income and paid the due taxes up and on that score the assessee cannot be considered as ‘assessee in default’. As on the date the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd. holds good and there is no view taken to the contrary by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the circumstances, we do not find anything illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, uphold the same. Appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →