ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 981/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 20186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide in light of the Hon'ble High Court's observations. The High Court had held notices for AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which deleted demands raised under Section 194H and directed recalculation of interest under Section 201(1A). The CIT(A) had deferred adjudication pending a High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the demand under Section 194H and directing recalculation of interest under Section 201(1A) based on pending High Court proceedings and interpretation of Section 201(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194H,Section 201(1A),Section 201(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI RAJ PAL YADAV & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Adv. &, Ms. Ishita, Adv
For Respondent: Smt. Anchal Khandelwal, Sr. DR, Adv. &, Ms. Ishita, Adv
Hearing: 21.08.2018

together and are being disposed off by way of common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. The grievances of the Revenue are as under:-

In ITA No.-980/Del/2015

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 194H, whereas the same issue has been decided in department’s favour by him in appeal No. 141/14-15 vide order dated 19.12.2014 for F.Y. 2003-04 in assessee’s own case. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.”

In ITA No. 981/Del/2015

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to calculate the interest u/s 201(1A) from the due date of payment of withholding tax to the date of payment of taxes by the deductees, whereas as per the proviso to section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, interest is chargeable from the date on which tax was deductible and not from due date of payment of TDS, as held by the Ld. CIT(A).

2. The appellant carves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.

In ITA No. 982/Del/2015

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to calculate the interest u/s 201(1A) from the due date of payment of withholding tax to the date of payment of taxes by the deductees, whereas as per the proviso to section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, interest is chargeable from the date on which tax was deductible and not from due date of payment of TDS, as held by the Ld. CIT(A).

2.

The appellant carves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.”

3. By relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A), which triggered these appeals read as under:-

“ 4.2 It has been informed that, the issue is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under the writ petition filed by the appellant and also agreed by the AO in the TDS order. In view of this, the issue is not adjudicated upon at this stage. Once the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in respect of the writ petition filed by the appellant on this issue for the subject year is passed, the AO is directed to apply the same in the subject year.

4.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 385 ITR 436 has observed as under:-

“30. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Syali while the Supreme Court had sent the matter back for further proceedings for AY 2002-03, as far as the orders under challenge in these writ petitions are concerned, they pertain to AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 in respect of which no orders have been passed by the Supreme Court. These notices, therefore, sought to initiate proceedings for declaring VEMSL to be an Assessee in default earlier than four years prior to 31st March, 2011.

31.

The Court agrees that the notices issued to VEMSL for the aforementioned AYs are not covered by the order of the Supreme Court for AY 2002-2003. Accordingly, insofar as the notices for AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are concerned, they are held to be unsustainable in law on the interpretation of Section 201(3) of the Act by the Court.”

5.

In the light of the aforesaid stated observations by the Hon’ble High Court, we restore the impugned issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue as per the observations of the Hon’ble High Court vis-à-vis the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned as above.

6.

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/8/2018

More judgments on Section 194H

All 1,314 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194H →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →