Addl. CIT, New Delhi V. M/s SRL Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1293/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8397 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH GNEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1293/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE 8, VS M/S SRL LIMITED, NEW DELHI. PLOT NO.D3, A WING, 2 ND FLOOR, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI PAN AAACS2809J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 15/7/1919 DATE OF ORDER : 16 /7/2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 2.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12INAPPEAL NO. 144, 145/2015-16 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI, (LD. CIT(A)), REVENUE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING STATE OF THE ART DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES, WHICH CONDUCT TESTS MEANT FOR DIAGNOSIS OF VARIOUS AILMENTS OF HUMAN BEINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, AR HAS 2 PRODUCED DETAILS CALLED FOR WHICH HAS BEEN TEST CHECKED. FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2011-12, THEY HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING A LOSS OF RS.21,74,43,858/- ON 29.9.2011. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A LOSS OF RS.10,08,18,403/- AND THE AO MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.39,74,080/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON INCOME-TAX REFUND, RS.1,41,34,770/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE DISCOUNTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT VARIOUS RATES TO THE AGENCIES AGAINST THE REVENUE EARNED FROM THEM AND RS.82,01,260/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FOREIGN/NON RESIDENT COLLECTION AGENTS. 3. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) AND 40(A)(I) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE AYS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 4. REVENUE, THEREFORE, PREFERRED THIS APPEAL STATING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(I) AND 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT U/S 194H/194C/195 OF THE ACT ON THE DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS COLLECTION AGENTS/FRANCHISE/CLINICAL TRIALS ETC., IN INDIA. 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT(A) CLEARLY HELD THAT THOUGH THE LD. AO MADE THE ADDITION ONTHE 3 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED DISCOUNT TO ITS COLLECTION AGENTS/FRANCHISE WITHIN INDIA AND OUTSIDE INDIA, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO TDS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT AND THE SAME IS DISALLOWABLE U/S 40(A)(IA) AND 4)(A)(I), THE ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSTT. YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 10, THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WAS FOLLOWED. THEREFORE, FOR THIS ASSTT. YEAR 2011-12 ALSO, LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR EARLIER YEARS BASING ON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT. 7. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 AND ALSO THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE AYS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 BASING ON THE ITAT DECISION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) COMMITTED ANYTHING WRONG. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION FROM THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PROMPTS TO HAVE A FRESH LOOK AT THE MATTER AND TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW. 8. FURTHER, FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10, REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITA NO.3851/DEL/2013 AND BY ORDER DATED 25.4.2018, THIS TRIBUNAL REITERATED THE VIEW TAKEN BY A COORDINATE BENCH FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 AND DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN ON THIS ASPECT CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPELLING REASONS OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. 4 9. WE, THEREFORE, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASAOMI SATSANG, 1992 AIR 377 DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED. 8. APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: JULY, 2019 VJ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED 15.7.2019 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.7.2019 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. DATE OF UPLOADING ON THE WEBSITE