COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO(TDS), CUTTACK
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 83/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)
…Tribunal in the case of ICICI Securities Limited, passed in ITA No.1511/Mum/2022, order dated 09.11.2022. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rishikesh Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., reported in [2002] 253 ITR 310 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held that if the tax was duly paid and that too at the time when it had become due, it would not be proper on the part of the revenue to levy any interest under section 201(1A) of the Act, especially when the contractor had paid more amount of tax by way of advance tax than what was payable by it. It was the submiss…