DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MAX LAB CINEMAS & ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD., ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2186/CHNY/2015Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 June 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clarity regarding the facts, including the initiation of a search and seized material. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order, and the assessee filed cross-objections. The core issue involved disallowances made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on various expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly examined the expenses and TDS compliance, and the validity of the AO's disallowances without a clear factual basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 132,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: CA :
Pronounced: 13.06.2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

1.

Revenue against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in to 47/14-15 dated 10.08.2015 for the AYs 2009- 10 to 2012-13 and Cross Objection Nos.16 to 19/Mds/2016 for the AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 filed by the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal Nos.2183 to 2186/Mds/2015.

2.

Mr.Iype Mathew, CA, represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Mr.R.Jeyakumar, CIT, represented on behalf of the Department.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that in the Cross-Objections the assessee has raised legal issues in respect of the non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) and on merits, the issues in the Revenue’s appeal and the Cross-Objections were against the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS in respect of various expenses debited to the income expenditure account.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee itself when filing its return disallowed the expenses on which TDS has not been deducted by applying the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia). It was a submission that the AO without examining any of the issues has made a blanket disallowance in respect of various expenses alleging non-deduction of TDS. On a specific to 2186/Mds/2015 & CO Nos.16-19/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: query to the Ld.DR, as to whether the AO has examined the accounts of the assessee to verify whether TDS has been deducted or not? It was fairly agreed by the Ld.DR that the issues in the Revenue appeal and in the Cross-Objections could be restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication. The Ld.AR did not raise any serious objections.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the order of the AO is not a Speaking Order and all the facts are not ascertainable from the Assessment Order, in so far as it is mentioned that there was a search initiated u/s.132 in the case of the assessee by executing a warrant of authorization on 22.07.2011. But immediately in the next line, it is mentioned that seized material relating to the assessee was found from the premises searched in the Mohanlal Group and Satisfaction Note has been recorded in the assessee’s file which clearly shows that there is no clarity in respect of the facts. In these circumstances, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues including legal issues are left open. to 2186/Mds/2015 & CO Nos.16-19/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross- Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on June 13, 2017, at Chennai.

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 →