ITO, Ward- 19(1), New Delhi V. Ogaan Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6284/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8284 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA No. 6284/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) ITO Ward – 19(1), New Delhi PAN No. AAACO 1078 K Vs. Ogaan Media Pvt. Ltd. H-2, Hauz Khas Village New Delhi-110 016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None- Revenue by Smt. Sarita Kumari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 02.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16.07.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 2 3. Assessee is a company which is stated to be engaged in the business of publication of fashion magazine. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring loss of Rs.8,88,669/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,32,58,333/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 16.07.2018 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-6/10579/2016-17 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,41,47,002/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act ignoring the express provision of law u/s 194H and CBDT Circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995 which states that the tax has to be deducted on the payments made to advertising agency. 2. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.” 4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed on their behalf even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee. In such a situation, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Learned DR. 3 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has claimed expenses on account of agency discount amounting to Rs.2,41,47,002/- on which no TDS was deducted by assessee. AO asked the assessee as to why no TDS was deducted to which the submissions were made by the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO was of the view that assessee was required to deduct TDS on the agency discount/commission paid by the assessee. Since assessee had not deducted the TDS, AO by invoking the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act made an addition of Rs.2,41,47,002/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee noted that the transactions was on Principal to Principal basis and therefore assessee was not required to deduct TDS on such payments. CIT(A) also noted that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10, identical addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was deleted by the Tribunal and further the order of the Delhi Tribunal was upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. She further relying on the CBDT Circular No.5/2016 dated 29.02.2016 held that assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payments made. She thus deleted the addition made by AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. 6. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 4 7. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the deletion of addition made by AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee had noted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 and the Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. She further noted that order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. She further relying on the CBDT Circular No.5/2016 dated 29.02.2016 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue nor has Revenue placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 which has been relied upon by CIT(A) while deciding the issue in assessee’s favour has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2021 Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 17.11.2021 5 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI