SITI CABLE NETWORK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2854/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 December 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they were not interested in pursuing it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) concerning demands raised under sections 201(1)/201(1A) for AY 2009-10. During the hearing, the assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be decided on merits or allowed to be withdrawn. The assessee chose to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali (AR)
Hearing: 29/11/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai-40 (in short ‘CIT(A)’}, dated 28.01.2014 passed order against u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 13.01.2011 for Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following Grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not deciding the appeal on merits and dismissing the belated appeal filed by the assessee even though the assessee has 2 Siti Cable Network given justifiable reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The reasons given by him for doing so are wrong contrary to the facts of the case and against the provision of law.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding order u/s 201(1)! 201(1A) wherein demand of Rs. 13,42,670/- has been raised by not adjudicating the appeal on merits thereby denying assessee proper opportunity of being heard which is against the principal of natural justice and provisions of law.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default u/s 201/201 (1A) of the Act as the assessee in fact has paid the alleged short/non deduction of TDS except Rs. 11,764/- and 11,825/-.

4.

Without prejudice to the above, for the alleged short deduction/payment the assessee relies on Hon'ble Apex Court decision in case of Hindustan Coca Cola (293 ITR 226) hence where the deductee/recipient has already paid taxes on income received from assessee, the dept. cannot again recover tax u/s 201 of the Act from deductor on the same income.

5.

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding demand on account of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act on above referred alleged defaults without considering the fact that the deductees have paid taxes on due date on their income.

6.

The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

7.

The appellate craves the leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal

1.

2. During the course of hearing Mr. Jay Bhansali, Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing this appeal and therefore this appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn. Ld. DR had no objection for withdrawing the appeal by the assessee.

3. Under these circumstances, the present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and thus dismissed as withdrawn.

4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed.

3 Siti Cable Network Order was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →