SAIFEE HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS )3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2335/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2008-092 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's rectification applications were allowed in their favor by the AO. Therefore, the appeals were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s order related to demands raised under Section 201(1A) for AYs 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The Assessing Officer had invoked Section 201(1A) for both years.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals are academic due to subsequent favorable orders from the AO, rendering the appeals moot.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath
For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam, DR
Hearing: 26.10.2016Pronounced: 26.10.2016

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the common order of the CIT (A)-13, Mumbai dated 25.2.2014 for the AYs 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed off in this consolidated order.

2.

Since, the Grounds raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of reference and adjudication purpose the grounds raised in the appeal ITA No.2335/M/2014 for the AY 2008-2009 are extracted as under:- “1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in not deleting the entire demand raised by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1A) of the Act.

2.

The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of the AO and holding that the appellant as „assessee in default‟ in respect of the tax of Rs. 10,42,829/-.

3.

The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the levy of interest charged by the AO u/s 201(1A) of the Act.”

3.

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee informed that AO invoked the provisions of section 201(1A) for both the years under consideration. Assessee filed

rectification application before the AO and the same was allowed in favour of the assessee vide the orders commonly dated 29.6.2015. Therefore, the instant appeals may be dismissed as academic.

4.

After hearing the Ld Representatives of both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us, we find that the adjudication of the instant appeals filed by the assessee for both the years becomes academic exercise and therefore, they have to be dismissed as academic. To that extent, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2016. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 26.10.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

5.

ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →