Vision 2K+Inc, Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2224/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0069 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEEJU GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 10B; 147; 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.2224/HYD/017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 VISION 2K + INC, HYDERABAD. PAN: AACFV 4642 H VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SMT NEEJU GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16/05/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 /05/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JM . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD DATED 18/09/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 67,416/ - BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THA T THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 67,416/ - IF ANY MADE WILL ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10B THE INCOME INCLUDING RS. 67,416/ - . 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING COMPUTER SOFTWARE. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,69,71,140/ - AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION US 10B OF THE ACT. ORIGINALLY, THE A SSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED U/S 143(3) OF 2 THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,69,71,140/ - DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10B OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUND THAT PF & ESI PAYMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEYOND THE DUE DATE STIPULATED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ON THE OTHER GROUND THAT THE AUDIT FEES OF RS. 67,416/ - WAS PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS U/S 194J OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R. W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 02/12/2013 BY DISALLOWING THE AUDIT FEE OF RS. 67,416/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT ONCE IF ANY DISALLOWANCE IS MADE BY THE A.O., THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHE R HAND, LD DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 6. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. I HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE PAYMENT OF RS 67,614/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS AUDIT FEES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AUDIT FEE AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) , A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ON APPEAL, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. I FIND THAT ONCE THE AUDIT FEES IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, HE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TDS AND FAILED TO DO SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE A CT AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE A.O.S ORDER. IN MY VIEW, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MAY, 2019. SD/ - (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH MAY, 2019. OKK, SR.PS COPY TO 4 1. VISION 2K + INC, H.NO.6 - 2 - 929/A, BESIDE ZEE TELUGU CHANNEL, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD - . 2. ACIT, CIRFCLE - 4(1), I.T. TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A) - 1 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 1 , HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE