ITO, TIRUNELVELI vs. V.MEENAKSHINATHAN, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 328/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 February 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and that the legal issue relied upon was reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for commission payments where tax was deducted but not paid on time. The CIT(A) relied on a previous tribunal decision, but the Supreme Court later reversed this interpretation.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts paid but with delayed TDS payment, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 20.02.2018

आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai, in dated 25.11.2014 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

Ms.D.Kumutha, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.Meenakshisundaram, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that in the course of the assessment, the AO had disallowed the commission payments on which tax was deducted but not paid within the time allowed by invoking the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was a submission that on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance by holding that the issue was covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri T.Mathimaran Vs. DCIT, in dated 23.09.2014, wherein, it had been held that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) applies only to those amounts which were payable and not, which were paid. It was a submission that the issue of paid, payable, now, stood reversed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service reported in [2017] 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that the word ‘payable’ occurring in Sec.40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.

4.

In reply, the Ld.AR admitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service.

However, it was a submission that the issue on merits was liable to be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. It was a submission that consequently, Ground Nos.10 to 21 of the assessee’s appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) has not been adjudicated. It was a submission that the issue was liable to be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions.

6.

As it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds on merits but has adjudicated the only issue on legal issues which now stand reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Service, the issues on merits in respect of the disallowance in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →