Sree Nivas Build Tech (India) Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, Pondicherry

ITA 2431/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8135 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAGADISAN
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2431/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S SREE NIVAS BUILD TECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NO.193, RANGAPILLAI STREET, PONDICHERRY 605 001. PAN : AAICS 0970 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, PONDICHERRY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. JAGADISAN, FCA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, C IT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 31.12.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2016 / 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) VI, CHEN NAI, DATED 30.07.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI V. JAGADISAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONA L GROUND BEFORE 2 I.T.A. NO.2431/MDS/14 THE CIT(APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U NDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE SAME. THE REFORE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REM ITTED BACK TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. MILIND MADHUKAR BHUSARI, TH E LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS N OT THE CASE OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DIS POSED OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY A SPEAK ING ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF ` 5 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT SA ID TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MR. ALPHONSE LIGOURI, FOUND THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE. HENCE, ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN A DDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS. THE LD. D.R. CLARIFIED THAT THE DISALLOWANC E WAS NOT MADE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX BUT, FOR NON-GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MORE PA RTICULARLY, PAGES 3 I.T.A. NO.2431/MDS/14 13 AND 14 OF THE ORDER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF TDS WAS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005-06 AND 2006-07 DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS SAID TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX OF ` 5100/- ON THE PAYMENT SAID TO BE MADE TO SHRI ALPHONSE LIGOURI DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN FACT, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO SHRI ALPHONSE LIGOURI DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND NO PAYMENT WAS MADE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, W HILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF ` 5 LAKHS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06 AND 2006-07, DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF PAYMENT AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY S UBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIAT E THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT. WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT ITSEL F IS DOUBTED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS 4 I.T.A. NO.2431/MDS/14 RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DISPOS ED OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGAR D TO ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DISPOSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL WITH REG ARD TO DEDUCTION OF ` 5 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFI RMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI-34 4. 1 92 /CIT, PONDICHERRY 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.