ASHOK SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 763/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 April 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to admit additional evidence and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the evidence and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) raised a tax liability for short TDS deduction under Section 194J, alleging the assessee wrongly applied Section 194C for civil work contracts. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices and non-admission of additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether payments for civil work contracts attracted TDS under Section 194J or 194C, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194J,Section 194C,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Doshi & Shri Piyush Bafna
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 16.04.2018Pronounced: 16.04.2018

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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”.

5.

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.

6.

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).

7.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the orders of

the AO and the CIT(A).

8.

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.

9.

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

More judgments on Section 194J

All 1,434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →