OCTANT INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6230/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 January 2016AY 2009-103 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 held that since the assessee had agreed to the addition before the CIT(A), they could not be considered aggrieved by the order. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 39,75,165/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest expenditure. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessee who has agreed to an addition can be considered aggrieved by the appellate order confirming it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 31.12.2015

Per B R Baskaran, AM: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-8, Mumbai wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.39,75,165/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source from the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent by RPAD on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

2

3.

We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The ld. DR invited our attention to para 3.4 of the order of ld.CIT(A) wherein it is observed by the ld.CIT (A) that “the ld. AR of the appellant had no objection in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.39,75,165/ under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (vide order sheet noting dated 23.8.2013)”. Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has agreed to the addition and it cannot be said that the assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We find merit in the contentions of the ld. DR. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT, 108 ITR 73 (Mad.) has held that “the appeal shall become incompetent if the assessee could not be said to have been aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer or Appellate Authority. Similar view has been expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Limited reported in 140 ITR 705 (Mad). Since the assessee has agreed to the addition, normally it cannot be said that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A) on the said issue. It was not shown to us that the acceptance of the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) is against the principles of law. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee..

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 1st Jan,2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 1st Jan, 2016 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 1st Jan, 2015. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

3 आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →