SITI CABLE NETWORK LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2854/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1792 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T A KHAN

Judgement Text

, , E, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2854/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 S IT I CABLE NETWORK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WIRE AND WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD. 135, CONTINENTAL BUILDING, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 / VS. ITO (TDS) WARD -3(5) K.G. M. HOSPITAL BLDG. CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI-400002 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDE NT ) P.A. NO. AAACW6349M APPELLANT BY SHRI JAY BHANSALI ( A R) REVENUE BY SHRI T.A KHAN (DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 29/11/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 06/12/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), MUMBAI- 40 (IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 28.01.2014 PASSED ORDER AGAI NST U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT, DATED 13.01.2011 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT DECIDI NG THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND DISMISSING THE BELATED APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SITI CABLE NETWORK 2 GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL. THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG CON TRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING ORDER U/S 201(1)! 201(1A) WHEREIN DEMAND OF RS. 13,42,670 /- HAS BEEN RAISED BY NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON M ERITS THEREBY DENYING ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUS TICE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201/20 1 (1A) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE IN FACT HAS PAID TH E ALLEGED SHORT/NON DEDUCTION OF TDS EXCEPT RS. 11,76 4/- AND 11,825/-. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, FOR THE ALLEGED SHO RT DEDUCTION/PAYMENT THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON HON'BLE AP EX COURT DECISION IN CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA (293 ITR 226) HENCE WHERE THE DEDUCTEE/RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY PAID TAXES ON INCOME RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE, THE DE PT. CANNOT AGAIN RECOVER TAX U/S 201 OF THE ACT FROM DEDUCTOR ON THE SAME INCOME. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE AC T ON ABOVE REFERRED ALLEGED DEFAULTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTEES HAVE PAID TAXES ON DUE DATE ON THEIR INCOME. 6. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTH ER. 7. THE APPELLATE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALT ER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING MR. JAY BHANSALI, COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL AND THEREFORE THIS APPEAL M AY BE PERMITTED TO BE WITHDRAWN. LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION FOR WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS P ERMITTED TO BE WITHDRAWN AND THUS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. SITI CABLE NETWORK 3 ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCL USION OF HEARING. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 06/12/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. !'#$%&%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. #$% &' , &' ) , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %*+ , / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, # //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI