ULTRAVISION HOUSING COMPANY,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1378/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 July 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) did not have the power to remit the matter to the AO as that power was omitted. However, the Tribunal itself has the power to remit for de-novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in building construction, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions, including a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C. The CIT(A) set aside the matter to the AO for verification.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) had the power to set aside the matter to the AO, and whether the case should be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 17.07.2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

1.

The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore, dated 31.10.2016 in Appeal No.405/15-16 for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised three grounds in its appeal however the cruxes of the issues are that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the applicability of the exclusion cause in sub-section

(3) of clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 194C of the Act and has further erred in setting aside the matter to the file of Ld.AO for verification, which power of the CIT(A) has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.06.2001.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of building construction and sale of property in the name of his sole proprietary firm M/s.Ultravision Housing Company, filed his return of income electronically for the assessment year 2012-13 on 16.09.2012 admitting total income of Rs.63,98,180/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s.143(2) & 143(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14.09.2013 & 15.12.2014 respectively. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 05.03.2015 wherein the Ld.AO made several additions, one of the addition being disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C of the Act because the assessee had not deducted tax at source. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the Ld.AO to verify the details and thereafter delete the disallowance in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

4.

Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) do not have the power to remit back the matter to the file of Ld.AO, because the same was omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.06.2001. Hence he pleaded that order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. The Ld.DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.AR.

5.

After hearing both sides, we find merit in the submission of the Ld.AR. However this Tribunal has the power to remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration. Since on merits the case of the assessee has not been properly examined, in the interest of justice we hereby remit back the matter to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration.

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 17th July, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →