NEW BAL ROADLINES, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4673/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1355 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Section: 143(3); 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4673/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) M/S. NEW BAL ROADLINES, GROUP NO.3/334/4057, TAGORE NAGAR, VIKHROLI(E), MUMBAI 400 083 PAN:AAAFN0886H ...... APPELL ANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI .... R ESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH DATE OF HEARING : 29/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2016 ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI DATED 03/05/2016, WHICH IN TURN, ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 26/03/2013. 2. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE STATED ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT BY REGISTERED P OST, WHICH HAS COME BACK AS 2 ITA NO.4673/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) UNCLAIMED. AS A CONSEQUENCE I PROCEED TO DISPOSE O F THE APPEAL, EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE ON MERITS AS PER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE S, 1963. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL, IS WITH REGARD TO A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,33,342/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE REQUISITE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT S OURCE. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOU ND TO HAVE PAID INTEREST TO A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY RS.5,33,342/-, O N WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INVOKED AND SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. BEFORE TH E CIT(A), AN ARGUMENT WAS RAISED THAT IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 4 0(A)(IA) INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT,2012 NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A )(IA) IS MERITED WHERE THE PAYEE HAS PAID TAX ON SUCH SUM BY FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SUCH AMENDMENT IS RETROSPE CTIVE AND SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE C IT(A), HOWEVER, NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF THE SA ID PROVISO BECAUSE THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN WITH REFER ENCE TO THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WIT H. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED WITH ANY EVIDENCE THAT SU CH CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD. 3 ITA NO.4673/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) 5. BEFORE ME, THERE IS NO AVERMENT WHICH SHOWS THA T THERE IS ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE FINDING OF THE C IT(A). AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND ASSES SEE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/12/201 6 SD/- (G.S.PANNU) ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29/12/2016 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI