ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. QUESTNET ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3222/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider any fresh evidence but relied on Form-26AS, which was already available with the Revenue. Therefore, no interference with the CIT(A)'s order was warranted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted a disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence, while the assessee contended that only Form-26AS was considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by admitting fresh evidence to delete the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ B’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in 17/A-3 dated 29.09.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue, and Mr.B.Gowthaman represented on behalf of the Assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the ld.D.R that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of tax deduction at source by admitting fresh evidences. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be reversed.

4.

In reply, ld.A.R drew our attention to Para Nos.4.8 & 4.9 at page-8 of order of the CIT(Appeals). It was further submitted that no fresh evidence has been produced before the Ld.CIT(A), and only Form-26AS, which was the evidence available before the ld. Assessing Officer, was considered by the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the order of CIT(Appeals) was liable to be sustained.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para No.4.9 of the order of CIT(Appeals) clearly shows that no fresh evidence has been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and what has been considered is only Form-26AS, which is a self-generated document as

per data available with the Revenue. This being so, I find no error in the order of CIT(Appeals), which calls for any interference.

Consequently, the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 17th May, 2018, at 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 →