Income Tax Officer-6(3), Kanpur V. M/s Kanchan Printing Press Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 521/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4792 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.521/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(3), KANPUR. VS. M/S KANCHAN PRINTING PRESS PVT. LTD. 02, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAACK6670P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 07/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/01/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 29/04/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1-2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.57,85,000 /- DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL OF THE CASE AND MERITS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.57,85,000 /- DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO I S JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT 'CONSULTANCY CHARGES' WHICH COMES UNDER THE PROVISO OF EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE VII OF S UB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 9 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS , UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RE STORED. 2 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-2011 IN I.T.A. NO.841/LKW/2014 DATED 31/08/2015. HE SUBMITTED COP Y OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT WHERE AS AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 194J OF THE ACT. IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-2011, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL TH AT SECTION 40A(IA) CAN ONLY BE INVOKED FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AND NOT FOR LESS D EDUCTION OF TDS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT AT THE MOST, SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS CAN B E RECOVERED IF IT IS FINALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 19 4J BUT THIS CONTROVERSY IS NOT BEFORE US. AFTER MAKING THIS OBSERVATION, THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED AS PER WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:15/01/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT . REGISTRAR