PRIME TIME IP MEDIA SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1180/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 118019914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T ROUMUAN PAITE
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PIKALE
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , / !' , # $ % BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 1180/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. PRIME TIME IP MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, MALKANI CHAMBERS, OFF. NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE(E) MUMBAI 400099 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(2)(2) AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 ( # ./ )* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACP 3911E ( (+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI G.S.PIKALE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.ROUMUAN PAITE . /# / DATE OF HEARING : 23/09//2013 01' . /# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/09/2013 2 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-17 MUMBAI DATED 26/10/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,25,261/- UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS CALLED FOR. IT . / ITA NO. 1180/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 2 IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF TA X IS DUE TO APPLICATION OF ERRONEOUS RATES. THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW. 2. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL TDS PAYM ENTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETUR N. FOR SUPPORTING SUCH CONTENTION REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO PAGE 5A OF TH E PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE ON 4/4/2006 AND 1/6/2006. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO D ISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE. THE AFOREMENTIONED RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AN APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. A FTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, AS IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE HA S PAID THE PAYMENT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO ADMIT SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE DIRECT ACCOR DINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/09/2013 2 . 01' # 3 45 23 /09/2013 1 . 6 % SD/- SD/- ( !' / N.K.BILLAIYA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 DATED 23 /09/2013 . / ITA NO. 1180/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 3 2 2 2 2 . .. . ,/78 ,/78 ,/78 ,/78 98'/ 98'/ 98'/ 98'/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. : / CIT 5. 8;6 ,/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6< = / GUARD FILE. 2 2 2 2 / BY ORDER, -8/ ,/ //TRUE COPY// > >> > / ? ? ? ? ) ) ) ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . ./ VM , SR. PS