Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
: Department by Mr.S.Nataraja, JCIT : Assessee by Mr. G.Baskar, Adv. : सुनवाई क+ तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13.02.2018 घोषणा क+ तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revenue against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai, in dated 12.01.2016 for the AY 2007-08. 2. Shri S.Nataraja, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri G.Baskar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. :- 2 -:
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the appeal was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the various expenditures disallowed by the AO on account of the non-deduction of TDS and application of the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the same by applying the principles of paid, payable. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had held that as there was no amount payable at the end of the relevant Assessment Year, provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) in respect of the non-deduction of TDS could not be applied.
In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the argument of the Ld.DR was not correct. It was a submission that the issue of the non-deduction of TDS and consequent application of provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act had been done when the original assessment was completed u/s.143(3).
Subsequently, the appeal had been preferred before the Ld.CIT(A) who had, vide his order in dated 14.08.2014, allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no payments outstanding at the end of the assessee. It was a submission that when giving effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the AO had made certain errors in giving effect to the order, against which, the assessee had filed to the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.966/13-14 dated 14.08.2014, no appeal had been preferred by the Revenue to the Tribunal. Consequently, when the order giving effect to was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) had, in Page No.4 of :- 3 -: his order, held that the order giving effect passed by the AO on 15.10.2014 was erroneous as the Ld.CIT(A) had clearly observed and had granted relief to the assessee in his order in ITA No.966/13-14 dated 14.08.2014. It was a submission that in the present appeal, the Revenue is attempting to challenge the order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed on 14.08.2014 in ITA No.966/13-14. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed.
We have considered the rival submissions.
A perusal of the Assessment Order more so, the order passed u/s.155 dated 15.10.2014 shows that the AO while giving effect to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in dated 14.08.2014 has attempted to restore the original Assessment Order. This has been negated by the Ld.CIT(A) in the Impugned Appellate Order dated 12.01.2016. This is also clear from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Page No.4 last two paragraphs which reads as follows:
As rightly pointed out by the appellant, the CIT(A) clearly observes that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted only in respect of payments outstanding at the end of the year which Rs.1,31,036/- in the case of the appellant. As per the findings of the CIT(A), since all the other payments were made before the financial year ending 31.03.2007 and were not outstanding at the end of the year, relief in respect of these payments was to be given as provisions of section 40(a)(ia) do not apply in such cases. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) only to Rs.1,31,036/- and allow the relief in respect of all the other payments as granted by the CIT(A)-VI in his order dated 14.08.2014. The appellant succeeds in its appeal. :- 4 -:
This being so, as the Revenue has not been able to point out any error in the findings as arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A) in the Impugned Appellate Order, we find no reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on February 13, 2018, at Chennai. (एस जयरामन) (जॉज" माथन) (S. JAYARAMAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER