Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This is the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-10, Pune, dated 07-01-2016 for the Assessment year 2010-11.
AO passed an order dated 15-07-2011 u/s.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) of the Act raising tax liability of Rs.6,85,595/-. AO alleged that the assessee did not apply the provisions of section 194J of the Act and therefore, to that extent, there is short of deduction of TDS. Otherwise, the assessee applied the provisions of section 194C of the Act.
During the First Appellate proceedings, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) as well as the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.).
Further, the CIT(A) alleged that the assessee did not comply with the
notices issued on 15-10-2015 and 10-12-2015. CIT(A) did not go into
the merits of the issue before dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed the present appeal with
the ground stating that “CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of
Assessing Officer who has treated the payments made for Civil Work
contract as payments made to Professionals that resulted in short
deduction of tax”.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention
to the submission of the Chief Accountant for the assessee praying for
admission of the additional evidences relating to nature of the work
contracts. He mentioned that admission of the additional evidences is
required as they go to the root of the issue involved in the appeal. He
justified that the provisions of section 194C of the Act are appropriate.
Further, explaining the reasons for non-attendance before the
CIT(A), Ld. Counsel referred to the relevant lines of the said submission.
The same is extracted here as under :
“As regards the non-filing of these additional evidences before the CIT(A), it is submitted that CIT(A)-10, Pune disposed off this appeal Ex-parte dismissing the appeal in limine for non prosecution. It is however submitted that vide the first notice, the hearing was fixed for hearing on 13-11-2015. Since the 13-11-2015 was happened to be Diwali Padva and appellant was observing holidays at that time said notice was received by the factory staff and remained to be communicated to the authorized representative since the administrative office was closed on account of Diwali/Padva. Thereafter the next date of hearing was fixed on 07-01-2015. However as informed by the appellant, it has not received the second notice and therefore nobody could attend on 07-01-2015 and hence these additional evidences could not be filed before Ld.CIT(A).”
Considering the above reasons, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested
for remanding the issue to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after
admitting the additional evidences. Eventually, he made a statement at
BAR that he shall attend before CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the orders of
the AO and the CIT(A).
We heard both the parties and perused the additional evidences
filed before us in the light of the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). The
list of items furnished before us constitutes list of deductees wherein
the TDS and other relevant documents are furnished. Further, the
copies of bills/running bills etc. issued by the Directors were also
included in the compilation of additional evidences. Considering the
same, we are of the opinion that these papers will help the officer to
decide whether the work contracts involving in this case attracts the
provisions of sections 194C or 194J of the Act. The request of the
assessee to admit the additional evidences is accepted and therefore, we
direct the CIT(A) to admit the same and adjudicate the issue after
granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, on
the issue of non-attendance by the assessee before the CIT(A), we find
the reasons given above appear sustainable. Therefore, we direct the
CIT(A) to consider the same and adjudicate the issue afresh.
Accordingly, the only ground raised by the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद�य पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 16th April, 2018 सतीश
आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The CIT(A)-10, Pune 4. CIT-10, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A Bench” Pune; 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune