ASIA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 671/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 September 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay for the first appeal after finding justifiable reasons. However, for the second appeal, the delay was not properly explained due to lack of proper affidavits, leading to dismissal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 15 days due to the death of the mother-in-law of the person handling tax matters. For another appeal, the delay was 408 days due to misplacement of the order by an employee of the Chartered Accountant's office.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals can be condoned based on the reasons provided, and whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted when the recipient NBFC has paid taxes on interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Pronounced: 25.09.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3480/Mds/2016
ITA No.671/Mds/2017

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

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

1.

the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, in dated 21.09.2016 for the AY 2013-14

2.

Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mrs.B.Jaisheila, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 15 days for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay petition specifying that the mother-in-law of the person who was handling the tax matters of the assessee company had expired on 13.12.2016 and it was only after completing the religious rituals she could resume duties which was resulted in 15 days delay.

4.

The Ld.DR did not raise any serious objections.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As the assessee has given justifiable reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, the delay of 15 days stands condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits.

6.

On merits, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the AO had disallowed the interest payments made to NBFCS without deducting the tax at source by applying the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was a ITA No.3480/Mds/2016 & :- 3 -:

submission that NBFCS have paid taxes on the interest payments and consequently no disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) was liable to be made.

7.

In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the NBFCS has paid taxes on interest paid by the assessee to them. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be confirmed.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee is liable to be deducted TDS on the interest paid to the NBFCs.

Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such interest paid.

The assessee is also unable to produce any evidence to show that the interest paid by the assessee has been considered in the income by NBFCs. This being so, we find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) or the AO, consequently the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stands confirmed.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

ITA No.671/Mds/2017 for the AY 2011-12:

Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, in dated 19.11.2015 for the AY 2011-12.

11.

Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mrs.B.Jaisheila, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

ITA No.3480/Mds/2016 & :- 4 -:

12.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 408 days. It was a submission that the delay was on account of the misplacement of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by an employee in the Office of the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. The Affidavit has been filed by the partner of the assessee’s firm. There is no Affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant or the employee of the Chartered Accountant. Consequently, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the appeal has not been properly explained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in limine.

13.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

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 →