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 Securities Pvt. 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. : AAACG9905H (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.7433/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 of Rs.14,931/- and levying a interest of Rs.7,167/- 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 NSE of Rs.2,89,923/- for rendering various services e.g. Lease line and VSAT 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.2,89,923/- to NSE 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 learned CIT(A), failed to appreciate that quantum addition of Rs.2,89,923/- made to the Returned Income of the appellant, in respect of which demand of Rs.14,931/- and interest of Rs.7161/- is raised on the appellant, has been deleted by the learned CIT(A) in appeal bearing no.IT/CIT(A)8/CIR.4/67/10- 11.”
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 made the payment to the NSE to the tune of Rs.2,89,923/-. Therefore, the TDS was assessed to the tune of Rs.14,931/- and interested u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was worked out to the tune of Rs.7,167/-
ITA No.7433/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 accordingly, the demand notice was issued. The assessee was not satisfied, therefore, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, therefore the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
ISSUE NO.1 TO 5:-
4. Issue no.1 to 5 are interconnected, therefore are being taken up together for adjudication. Under these issues the assessee has pleaded that the assessee was not under obligation to deduct the TDS on account of payment made to the tune of Rs.2,89,923/- to NSE lease line charges and VSAT operation charges but the CIT(A) has confirmed the TDS u/s.194J of the Act @ 5.15 on Rs.2,89,923/- i.e. total to the tune of Rs.14,931/- along with interest u/s.201(1A) worked out to the tune of Rs.7,167/- wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The notice has been issued to the assessee which was duly served to the assessee but the assessee 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.2,34,923/-, and Vsat operating charges of Rs.55,000/- but failed to deduct the tax u/s.194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer has rightly deducted the tax along with interest as per law, therefore, we nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in ITA No.7433/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 question. Since no material of any kind was produced before us, 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 ate this appellate stage. Accordingly, all these issues are decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.