JAINSONS WOVEN ART ,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7815/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee remained absent and did not adduce arguments. The Department's Representative sought dismissal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly upheld an addition of Rs. 11,33,514/- related to non-technical payments, making Section 195 applicable.

What were the facts?

The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The AO had passed an order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) raising a demand of Rs. 2,18,768/- for non-deduction of tax at source. The CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO for non-deduction of tax at source on payments to non-residents, and if Section 195 of the Act is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 40(a)(i),Section 195

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Hearing: 07/04/2025Pronounced: 09/04/2025

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-Karnal [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] dated 09/07/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) came to be passed on 18/12/2018 by holding Assessee in default and raised the demand u/s 201 (1) of the Act and also charged interest u/s 201 of the Act by computing the demand payable at Rs. 2, 18,768/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18/12/2018, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09/07/2019, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Ongoing through the order sheet, it is found that the Assessee has been remained absent continuously and not adduced any arguments. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal after hearing the Department's Representative.

4.

The Department's Representative relying on the findings and conclusion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal .

5.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the Appeal, specifically observed that in the assessment order, the A.O. made an addition amounting to Rs. 78,41,993/- u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction on account of payments made to non- resident, further the Ld. CIT(A) in his order in IT/52/PPT/2014-15 dated 21/10/2016, had upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 11,33,514/- and deleted the remaining on account of being under the category technical services having been rendered. The Ld. CIT(A) has also further observed that the amount confirmed clearly relates to the payments being made a non-technical value, accordingly, held that the provisions of Section 195 of the Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the same is not covered by the specified list where payment is not chargeable to tax. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in the absence of any contrary material/facts available on record, we find no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Ld. CIT(A). Finding no merits in the Grounds of Appeal, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09th April, 2025

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →