ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MICC PTA INDIA CORP. PVT. LTD., PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 468/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 December 2017AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the applicability of Section 194C versus 194I.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on Wharfage Charges. The CIT(A) confirmed this finding but held that the assessee had a bonafide belief to deduct tax under Section 194C instead of Section 194I.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee correctly applied Section 194C instead of Section 194I for deducting tax at source on Wharfage Charges, and the consequential penalty under Section 271C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C,Section 194I,Section 271C,Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’ble]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2016
I.T.A. No. 469/Kol/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Jha, Office Staff, present on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Tiwari & Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, CIT, DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 19th, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December 26th, 2017

O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Both these appeals are filed by the revenue and are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 31/12/2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12, on the following grounds:-

2. The common grounds of appeal for both the Assessment Years are as follows:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- 24/Kolkata, has erred in deleting the penalty the penalty u/s 271C. In the appellate order certain points had been set aside before the TDS A.O. for verification. In those issues penalty amount can be retained,

2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 469/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 MCC PTA INDIA Corp. Pvt. Ltd reduced or enhanced as per section 275(1A) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) overrides such provision and thus erroneous. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter/modify the ground of appeal during the course of hearing.”

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any submissions were made. An application for adjournment is filed. The same is rejected as, in our view, it is not a fit case for grant of adjournment. We proceed to dispose off this case ex-parte, qua the assessee on merits, after hearing the ld. D/R.

4.

We have heard the ld. D/R Shri A.K. Tiwari. The Assessing Officer, in this case has passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, on 31/03/2014. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as required by law. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority, confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer on the issue of deduction of tax at source on Wharfage Charges. He held that the assessee has bonafide belief and reasonable cause to deduct tax at source u/s 194C of the Act, rather than Section 194I of the Act.

5.

We are of the opinion that the issue should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, keeping in view the findings of the ld. First Appellate Authority, on the order passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act.

6.

In the result, both these appeals by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 26th day of December, 2017.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →