Pelican Estates and Developers, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1905/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3919 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MURALI MOHAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1905/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S PELICAN ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS, T-2, 3 RD FLOOR, NO.31, RAJAMMANAR STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAHFP 2942 H V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI - 600 034. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. MURALI MOHAN, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, CHENN AI, DATED 31.03.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. NO.1905/MDS/16 2. SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF 8,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO T HE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAX, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE RECIPIENT H AS PAID THE TAX ON THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI MURALI MOHAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT W HETHER THE RECIPIENT PAID TAXES OR NOT NEED TO BE VERIFIED, TH EREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 8,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE NOW C LAIMS THAT THE RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWAN CE. HOWEVER, 3 I.T.A. NO.1905/MDS/16 THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SE T ASIDE AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF 8,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AND VERIFY WHETH ER THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE RECIPIENT ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM T HE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW , AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, CHENNAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.