Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आयकर अपील सं/ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ GSB Capital Markets Ltd. Income Tax Officer (TDS) 78/80 Ali Chambers, 1(4) Vs. Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCG7866N (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) .. Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Rajguru M. V. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24.03.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2008-09.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as in fact and circumstances of the case in passing ex-parte order in appellate proceeding ignoring the letter of adjournment filed by authorized
ITA No.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 person, which is against the Principal of Natural Justice and fair in paly.
2. Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) erred in law, and in circumstances in confirming the ex-parte order passed by the A.O. u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, and raising a demand along with interest of Rs.16,181/- without granting proper opportunity of being heard.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law, and in circumstances, without appreciating the fact that payment made by the appellant to BSE of Rs.2,12,297/- towards MTNL Lease line charges, VSAT operating charges, did not fall within the purview of section 194J of the Act.
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of A.O. passed u/s.201(1) and 201 (1A) of the Act, raising a demand along with interest in respect of non deduction of tax by the appellant in respect of payment made of Rs.2,12,297/- to BSE u/s.194J of the Act, when the appellant denies their liability u/s.194J of the Act, in respect of the said payment.
The brief facts of the case are that at the time of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on payment made on professional fees u/s.194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the payment u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee did not deduct the tax on the amount to the tune of Rs.2,12,297/- u/s.194J of the Act, therefore TDS has to be deducted @ 5.150 of Rs.10,933/- and interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act was worked out at Rs.5,248/- and was also added to the income of the assessee. In brief the assessee paid the lease line charges of Rs.59,212/-, transaction charges Rs.93,733/- and CDSL Charges Rs.59,352/-. The assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who
ITA No.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 confirmed the said addition, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
ISSUE NO.1 TO 4:-
4. Under the above said issues, the assessee has challenged the addition on account of non deduction of TDS on the amount of Rs.2,12,297/- towards MTNL on account of lease line charges u/s.194J of the Act along with interest and VSAT operating charges and transaction charges. The notice has been issued to the assessee which was duly served to the assessee but the failed to appear before us, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The assessee as well as his representative nowhere represented the case. No material of any kind was produced before us to which it can be assumed that the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It is not in disputed that the assessee paid lease line charges of Rs.59,212/-, transaction charges Rs.93,733/- and CDSL Charges Rs.59,352/- but failed to deduct the tax u/s.194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer has rightly deduct the tax along with interest as per law, therefore, we nowhere found any wrong order passed by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) in question. Since no material of any kind was produced before us to differentiate the finding of the CIT(A) in question, therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter judiciously and correctly which is not required to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, all these issues are decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
ITA No.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09