SHARON SOLUTIONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1894/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 November 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the facts regarding TDS deduction and payment, and the filing of Form 10CCB for Section 80-IB deduction, needed to be verified.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 22 days. The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure of Rs.5,04,79,675/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee claimed tax was deducted and paid, and also claimed deduction under Section 80-IB.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS was correctly deducted and paid, and whether Form 10CCB was filed for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 80-IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 08.11.2019

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 29.03.2019, and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

There was a delay of 22 days in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have heard the ld. DR. We find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

No one appeared for the assessee when the appeal was 3. taken up for hearing, even though notice of hearing was served on the assessee by RPAD. The registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as a proof of service of notice on the assessee.

Therefore, we heard the ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.

4.

Now coming to the merit of the appeal. The learned Departmental Representative, Mr.P.Muthushankar submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure to an extent of Rs.5.04,79,675/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. In Ground No.3, the assessee claims that tax was deducted and paid to the Government account, which was disclosed in the tax audit report.

Therefore, this needs to be verified.

5.

Having heard the learned Departmental Representative, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fact whether the assessee has deducted tax as claimed in Ground No.3 of grounds of appeal, needs to be verified. Besides the issue raised in Ground No.3, it also needs to be verified whether the assessee has filed Form No.10CCB for claiming deduction u/s.80-IB of the Act. The assessee claims that filing of Form No.10CCB is only a curable defect. Since the facts are not available on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter is to be re-examined. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter afresh and bring on record whether the assessee has deducted the tax as claimed and paid to the government account. It also needs to be verified that the assessee has filed Form No.10CCB for claiming deduction u/s.80-IB of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter afresh in the light of material filed by the assessee after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on the 8th November, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →