ITO (TDS) (OSD)3(2), MUMBAI V. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7136/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8740 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHGAITALI BHATAWDEKAR
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.7136 TO 7138/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS-2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 THE ITO (TDS)(OSD)-3(2), MUMBAI VS. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, AHURA CENTRE, 82, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400 093 PAN-AABCT 3518Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.B. KOLI RESPONDENT BY: MS. CHGAITALI BHATAWDEKAR DATE OF HEARING :27.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.09.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-14, MUMBAI DT.29.7.20 11 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2008-09. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE A PPEALS ARE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 201(1A) OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NOS. 7136 TO 7138/M/11 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 6410 TO 6413/MUM/09 AND ITA N OS. 6282 TO 6285/M/09. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER U/S. 201(1A) OF THE ACT SHOW THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED INTEREST UNDER THE SAID SECTION AS THE A O WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 194J OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF SEC. 194C OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 IN ITA NOS. MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. WE FIND THAT AT PAGE-18 PAR A 25, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTFULLY DEDUCTED TAX U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FOL LOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. AS IT HAS BEEN HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS RIGHTFULLY DEDUCTED TAX U/ S. 194C OF THE ACT, THEIR REMAINS NO OCCASION TO LEVY INTEREST U/S. 201(1A) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 SD/- SD/- ( D INESH K UMAR AG A RWAL ) (N.K. BILLAIYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 RJ ITA NOS. 7136 TO 7138/M/11 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI