J RAY MCDERMOTT S A,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1712/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2022AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the demand raised by AO/CPC-TDS under section 200A. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessee as 'Assessee in Default' and charging short deduction and interest. The assessee also questioned the remand of an issue instead of deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 201(1A),Section 44BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 21/12/2022Pronounced: 21/12/2022

ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated Nil pertaining to A.Y.2018-19.

2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Appellant as 'Asesssee in Default' u/s 200A of the Act.

2.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that CPC-TDS is correct in charging short deduction default amounting to Rs. 4,67,41,733 and interest u/s 201(1A) amounting to Rs. 40,38,885/-.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant has duly deducted tax u/s 44BB of the Act as applicable in respect of payments made by the Appellant to various non- resident contractors and therefore it could not be said to be 'assessee in default.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in remanding issue back to Assessing Officer-TDS (hereinafter referred as 'AO- TDS') instead of deciding the issue on merits on his own.

3.

At the very outset the authorized representative of the assessee moved the following application :-

December 21, 2022 The Hon’ble Members, Bench - “D” Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi- 110003 Re: J Ray Mcdermott S A (“Appellant”)

Sub: Request for withdraw of appeal bearing for assessment year 2018-19 May it please Your Honours. The captioned appeal is fixed for hearing before the Hon’ble Bench 'D' of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) today i.e., December 21, 2022.

In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the appeal pertains to the order passed by CIT(A) upholding the demand raised by AO/CPC-TDS under section 200A of the Income tax Act, 1961. The said demand, however, has been deleted on account of revised TDS return filed by the Appellant.

In this regard, the Appellant humbly craves leave to withdraw the captioned appeal.

We pray that our request shall be acceded to. Thanking you Yours sincerely, (Authorized Representative)

4.

Noting the contents of the application this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

Decision announced in the open court on 21.12.2022

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →