C I T JAIPUR vs. M/S COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD

ITA/124/2012HC RajasthanRJHC02058835201229 July 20155 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Compucom Softwares Ltd, is a public limited company engaged in software export, computer education, and power generation. During a survey on September 14, 2009, it was observed that the assessee had paid substantial amounts to contractors and sub-contractors without deducting tax at source. The Director admitted lack of awareness of TDS provisions. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice and subsequently made an addition of Rs. 84,56,827/- representing expenses on which TDS was allegedly not deducted. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had deducted and deposited Rs. 6,49,547/- as TDS, supported by challan receipts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal but granting liberty to the department to proceed if the claim was found incorrect. The revenue appealed to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue was decided based on material placed on record by the assessee before the appellate authorities, which was examined by both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Court considered this to be essentially a finding of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. While dismissing the appeal, the Court granted liberty to the Assessing Officer to check and verify the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding tax deduction and deposit on the payment of Rs. 84,56,827/-. The AO was permitted to initiate proceedings in accordance with law if not satisfied with the claim put forward before the appellate authorities. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the AO implies a potential for further proceedings on the factual correctness of the TDS claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse, lacking independent findings and accepting the CIT(A)'s reasoning without justification, thereby raising a substantial question of law? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred by allowing a new case to be made out before it regarding the TDS amount and its calculation (Rs. 6,05,44,205/- expenditure, Rs. 6,23,605/- TDS, and Rs. 6,49,547/- deposited) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine these facts, and whether the matter should have been restored to the AO? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Tribunal's finding is perverse as it did not record independent findings and accepted the CIT(A)'s order without reasoning. A new case was made out before the CIT(A) regarding TDS calculations, and the AO was not given an opportunity to examine these facts. The matter should have been restored to the AO. Substantial questions of law arise from the Tribunal's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 194(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.124/2012 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur v. M/s Compucom Softwares Ltd Date of order 30.7.2015 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. Nikhil Simlote, for appellant Mr. Sandip Taneja, for respondent By the Court (per J.K. Ranka, J.)

1.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Division Bench of ITAT, and is relevant for the assessment year 2007-

08.2.

Brief facts for disposal of the present appeal, are that the respondent-assessee is a Public Limited company and is deriving income by way of export of computer software, imparting computer education in schools, and income from power generation. A survey came to be ordered on the business premises of the respondent-assessee on 14.9.2009, and it was noticed that though the assessee had paid huge amount to various contractors and sub-contractors, but did not deduct

2 tax at source, and during the course of survey, statement of the Director was recorded who had stated that since they were not aware of t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194(c)

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →