GSB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD, MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7432/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2017AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in the AO's action of demanding TDS and interest. The assessee failed to provide any material to challenge the findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to deduct TDS on payments made for lease line charges, VSAT operating charges, and transaction charges, which the Assessing Officer treated as professional fees under Section 194J. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether payments for lease line, VSAT, and transaction charges fall under Section 194J for TDS purposes and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194J,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 24.03.2017Pronounced: 29.03.2017

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.

2.

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.

4.

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.

3.

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

More judgments on Section 194J

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →