Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.06.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2014-15.
As it appears from the Form No. 36, the Assessee has provided only one address for sending notices, i.e., 406, 4th Floor, Elegance Tower 8, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi, on which the notice dated 08.06.2022 for the date of hearing on 14.09.2022, was sent through Speed Post, however despite notice, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, we are deciding this appeal as exparte.
In the instant case, on the basis of the grievance petition filed by M/s. Sporty Solutionz (P) Ltd. (Deductee) on dated 04.08.2017, the Assessing Officer noticed that though the Assessee deducted the TDS, but did not deposit the same in the Government Account. Accordingly, vide letter dated 09.08.2017, the Assessee was asked to furnish copy of Chhallans and TDS returns, which remained un- complied.
As it appears from the Assessment order, though various notices/queries have been issued/raised to the Assessee, however the Assesseeexcept seeking adjournments made no actual compliance to the notices/queries raised. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Assessing Officer by observing that as per agreement dated 26.05.2013 between the Assessee and M/s. Sporty Solutionz (P) Ltd., the Assessee company made payments to the extent of Rs.3,60,00,000/- as franchisee fee without deducting TDSand reproducing the provisions of section 194J of the Act, determined the tax liability of the Assessee to the tune of Rs.64,91,250/- {Rs.36,00,000/- u/s. 201(1) and Rs.28,91,250/- as interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act}.
The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1)/20(1A) of the Act before the ld. Commissioner.
The ld. Commissioner, though by issuing notices,afforded 05 opportunities to the Assessee, however, the Assessee made no actual compliance. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner by noting the facts “that it is worthwhile to mention that the ld. AR vide letters dated 26.02.2019, 11.03.2019, 20.03.2019 and 05.04.2019 has only requested for adjournments on the ground that they are in process of collecting documents/information. While granting adjournment on application dated 05.08.2019, it was specifically mentioned that no further adjournment would be allowed. However, the ld. AR did not come forward to either argue the case or to submit written explanation” came to the conclusion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal and hence, the same is being decided on the basis of material available on record.
5.1 Ultimately, the ld. Commissioner by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, by concluding as under:
4.1 All the grounds of appeal raised are pertaining to raising the demand of short deduction u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 194J on Franchisee fee paid to M/s Sporty SolutionzPvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration at Rs. 3,60,00,000/- besides consequential interest u/s 201(1A). As per the agreement, the deductee company was sports right and event Management Company. Badminton Association of India (BAI), which is the governing body for the game of Badminton in the territory of India and is duly registered, approved and recognized by the Badminton World Federation and Indian Olympic Association, has authorized the deductee company to create, develop, operate, conduct a domestic tournament under the name of "Indian Badminton League" or "IBL". Based on the various parameters of the agreement, the Franchisor (deductee company) has transferred the right to the Franchisee (deductor company) to establish and operate the tournament. As per the agreement, the deductor company has agreed to pay Rs. 3.50cr for this transfer of right during the year under consideration by the deductee company, M/s Sporty SolutionzPvt. Ltd. Thus, from the agreement, it was clear that the Fee was paid for professional/ technical services liable for TDS u/s 194J. Accordingly, I hold that the AO has rightly raised the demand u/s 201(1)/201(1A) and hence, all the grounds of appeal raised are dismissed.”
5. The Assessee being aggrieved preferred the instant appeal.
We have heard the Ld. DR. It clearly appears from the orders passed by the authorities below that the conduct of the Assesseeprima facie seems to be un-responsiveand irresponsible. As it appears from the orders passed by the authorities below that M/s Sporty SolutionzPvt. Ltd.(Deductee) had transferred its right to the Assessee (franchisee/deductor) to establish and operate the tournament qua Badminton. As per the agreement, the Assesseeagreed to pay Rs.3.50 crores for the said transfer of such right during the year under consideration by M/s Sporty SolutionzPvt. Ltd. 6.1 Thus, franchisee feewas paid for professional/technical services and therefore, the Assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194J of the Act, but theAssesseefailed to do so and consequently, the Assessee was treated as an Assessee in default for non- deduction of TDS u/s. 194J of the Act.
6.2 In the absence of any explanation before the authorities below as well as before us, by the Assessee, the facts for non- deduction of TDS remained un-rebutted. Hence, we are inclined not to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.