ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), CHENNAI V. Questnet Enterprises India Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 3222/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5159 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B GOWTHAMAN C A
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3222/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI-34. VS. M/S.QUESTNET ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT LTD., NO.7, OLD NO.9, 9 TH FLOOR, NORTHERN SIDE RAIN TREE, MCNICHOLS ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI-31. [PAN AAACQ 1177 H ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, D.R /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.GOWTHAMAN, C.A ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 0 5 - 201 8 $% ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 - 0 5 - 201 8 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.234/16- 17/A-3 DATED 29.09.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14-15. ITA NO.3222/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: 2. MR.B.SAGADEVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, AND MR.B.GOWTHAMAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.D.R THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE, MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX DEDUCTION A T SOURCE BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCES. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THA T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4. IN REPLY, LD.A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NOS .4.8 & 4.9 AT PAGE-8 OF ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.CIT( A), AND ONLY FORM-26AS, WHICH WAS THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF PARA NO.4.9 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT NO FRESH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND W HAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IS ONLY FORM-26AS, WHICH IS A SELF-GENER ATED DOCUMENT AS PER DATA AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE. THIS BEING SO, I FIND NO ERROR IN ITA NO.3222/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), WHICH CALLS FOR ANY INTE RFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 17 TH MAY, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 17 TH MAY, 2018. K S SUNDARAM (!)* +*! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. ,! / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. *-.!/ / DR 3. ,!0 1 / CIT(A) 6. .23 / GF