Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a company engaged in conducting Kuries, paid bonus prizes to subscribers in FY 2005-06. The ITO, TDS, opined that tax deduction at source was required on these prizes and demanded tax from the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions. Considering the interest of justice and a Kerala High Court decision, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on bonus prizes paid to Kuri subscribers.
Sections Cited
201(1), 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 17.04.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of conducting Kuries. During the financial year 2005-06 the appellant company had paid bonus prizes to the kuri subscribers. ITO TDS, Thrisssur was of the opinion that the Vikas Funds and Kuries Pvt. Ltd. appellant is liable to deduct tax at source on the prize money and on account of failure of the appellant company. Accordingly, the ITO TDS had demanded tax of Rs. 3,78,675/- u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.
At the outset, we find that the CIT(A) had passed a very cryptic order without considering the written submissions filed by the appellant. Further, we find that the issue in the appeal has to be decided keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sampaanna Kuries (P) Ltd. v. ITO dated 16.09.2004. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter requires remand to the file of the A to pass a fresh order keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sampanna Kuries (P) Ltd. supra.