DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE BIG ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 635/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 January 2017AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue'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, directing the AO to gather further information from concerned parties via section 133(6) notices. The final decision on the disallowance was made contingent on this verification and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed an income of Rs. 2,08,15,063/- because the assessee claimed TDS credit on this amount but failed to offer it as income or reconcile the details. The CIT(A) directed the AO to issue notices under section 133(6) to parties to obtain information and then decide.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in remanding the issue for further verification instead of upholding the AO's disallowance based on the assessee's failure to provide details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 199,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B Sanghavi &, Shri Amit Khatiwala, AR
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR
Hearing: 23/01/2017Pronounced: 27/01/2017

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) – 21, Mumbai and arises out of order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue read as under:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing a perverse order no appreciating the fact that related issue is of 26AS and not AIR/CIB data.

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the provisions of section 199 of the Act, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the TDS deducted and claimed is deemed to be income received.

Further erred in not appreciating the Rule 37BA which is effective from Assessment Year 2011-12 and hence, is applicable in the present case.

1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee on its own admitted failure to give verifiable details as appearing in para 4.1 of the assessment order.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessing Officer(AO) on verification of details of income as per Form 26AS found that the assessee had not offered income to the tune of Rs. 2,08,15,063/-, however, it has claimed credit of TDS on these incomes. As the assessee failed to reconcile the above amount, the AO disallowed the same and added it back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration.

4.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) in the appellate order dated 05.11.2014 has held as under: ‘’In view of the above decision, the A.O. is directed to issue notices under section 133(6) to all the paries which are in AIR/CIB data and obtain information from the respective authorities and furnished the same to the appellant after providing the opportunity if the appellant further could not reconcile, if the details are furnished then the issue can be sustained. Even after furnishing of the details, A.O. could not reconcile the amount, then the amount is deleted. Ground of appeal is subject to verification.’’

5.

The learned DR supports the order passed by the AO He refers to section 199 of the Act relating to credit for tax deducted.

6.

On the other hand, the learned counsel of the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) has passed an order holding that the said ground of appeal is subject to verification.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute of the fact that the learned CIT(A) has directed the AO to issue notices u/s 133(6) to the concerned parties and obtain information and thereafter pass a fresh order as per the provisions of the Act after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the given facts in the instant case, the above order of the learned CIT(A) is a proper one. We uphold the same.

More judgments on Section 199

All 535 judgments and leading authorities on Section 199 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →