M/s Dhauladhar Education Society, Kangra V. ITO (TDS), Palampur

ITA 204/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4949 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 15; 139; 201; 194A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 201 TO 204/CHD/2018- DHAULADHAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, DISTT.KANGRA 2 3. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEITHER THE ASSESS EE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE FILED ANY SUBMISSIONS AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DECLARING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESS EE IN DEFAULT. HOWEVER, IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS THE INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S KOTAK MAHI NDRA BANK WAS CONCERNED, THE SAME WERE EXEMPT FROM THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT BEING FALLING UNDER THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE OF SECTION 194A(3)(I)(A ) OF THE ACT AS THE KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK WAS A BANKIN G COMPANY TO WHICH THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 APPLIES. THE SECOND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT SO FAR AS THE INTEREST PAYMENT MADE TO MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SER VICES LTD WAS CONCERNED, THAT THE SAID COMPANY IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME HAD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON M ERITS VIDE ORDER DATED 26.7.2017 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE PAYEE U/S 139 OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED M.A. U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT AND SOUGHT TO FURNISH THE PAN NUMBER AND STATUS OF ONE OF THE PAYEE KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK BEING A BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 154 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISH ED THE ABOVE DETAILS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE P ARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMI SSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PLEA DED THAT THE