HTA MARKETING SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4626/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering any documents or submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and upholding the disallowance without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the nature of payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194J,Section 192

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 25.07.2019Pronounced: 25.07.2019

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

1.

This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-4, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in ITA No. CIT(A)-4/IT-205/DCIT.2(1)/2013-14 dated 21.03.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-

2(1), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 31.01.2014, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. DR stated that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and for this assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in - 1.1 Passing the impugned appellate order as an "ex-parte order".

1.2 Passing the impugned appellate order without any papers and documents and without any submissions made before him.

1.3 Upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,13,35,348/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that since the payments made were in the nature of actual reimbursement of salaries on which appropriate tax had been deducted and deposited by the Hindustan Thompson Associates Nt. Ltd. ("holding company"), the provisions of Chapter XVII-B are not applicable and therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable to the said payments.

1.4 Upholding that payments made to the Holding company were in the nature of fees for professional services and liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194] of the Act though the payment was towards Secondment charges.

1.5 Without preiudice to the above and in the alternate:

Not appreciating that even otherwise, since the payment was towards reimbursement of salaries of seconded employees, tax would be deductible under section 192 of the Act and not under section 194J.

1.6 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate:

Upholding the disallowance not appreciating the fact that where an assessee fails to deduct tax under Chapter XV! 1-13 on any sum but is deemed not to bean assessee in default under the first proviso of section 201, then for the purpose of this sub-clause it shall be deemed that the appellant had deducted and paid the tax thereon on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee.”

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 →