DCIT, CHENNAI V. S.Thirumalai, CHENNAI

ITA 1563/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73642 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' # $ BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1563/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(4), CHENNAI 34 ( !% /APPELLANT) VS SHRI S. THIRUMALAI, PROP: MARUTHI ELECTRICAL ENERGY, B-5, TVK INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600 097 [PAN: AAEPT 1716 C] ( &'!% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-01-2014 #( / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, CH ENNAI DATED 01-02-2012 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 200 8-09. I.T.A. NO. 1563/MDS/2013 2 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF FIFT EEN DAYS. AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE)- I(4), CHENNAI HAS BEEN FILED CITING REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DELAY IN FIL ING OF THE APPEAL IS UN-INTENTIONAL AND THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED FOR THE B ONAFIDE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS CONDONED. THE APPEAL IS AD MITTED TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED-OFF ON MERITS. 3. A NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DR. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY T HE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, TO-DAY NEITHER THE ASSES SEE NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF ELEC TRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE AY. 2008- 09 ON 23-02-2009 DECLARING HIS INCOME AS ` 91,27,840/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTIC E U/S.143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09-03-2009. DURING THE C OURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` 46,34,094/- TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NO. 1563/MDS/2013 3 INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND DIS -ALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-12 -2010, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APP EALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT S OURCE ON PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), T HE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. SHRI S. DASGUPTA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IN SOME CASES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS TH E AMOUNTS PAID WERE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LIMITS PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SECTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW, ON WHICH PAYMENTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AR E NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT IN SOME CASES, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BALD STATEMENT MA DE BY THE I.T.A. NO. 1563/MDS/2013 4 ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RECORDS AND DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.DR. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. FROM THE PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS ON WH AT BASIS THE DIS- ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(I A) HAS BEEN DELETED. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY DOCUMENT OR HAS VERIFIED THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE NEEDS A REVISI T TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ACCORDIN GLY, THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, IF ANY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON THURSDAY, THE 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR