Voice Line Tele Services, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

ITA 723/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6141 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J DIVYA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 723/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 VOICE LINE TELE SERVICES, HYDERABAD [PAN: AACFV7461L] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SMT. K.J.DIVYA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-02-2020 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2014-15, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)6, HYDERABAD, DATED 01-12-2017. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING OF THE PRES ENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY, STATING THAT THE DELAY IS DUE TO ILL-HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SUMMER. BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROC EED TO DISPOSE-OF THE APPEAL AS UNDER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CARRYING ON DEALERSHIP FOR TATA DOC OMO SERVICES. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A Y.2014-15 ON 31-03-2015 DECLARING NIL INCOME. ITA NO. 723/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] CONSEQUENT TO SELECTION OF CAS E FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID STATUTORY LIABILITY OF SERVICE TAX OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TOTALLING TO RS.32,51,334/- AN D THE LIABILITY IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE AS SESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID EVEN BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALS O NOTICING THAT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., AYS.2012-13 AND 2013-14 ALSO THERE WAS OUTSTANDING SERVICE TAX, THE SUM OF RS.8,70,684/-, PERTAINING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, WHICH REMAINED UNPAID, WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNE D AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AND WAS B ROUGHT TO TAX. FURTHER, AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITE D VARIOUS EXPENSES, BUT THERE WERE NO PROPER VOUCHERS/ BILLS WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED 20 % OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.93,693/- AND BROUGHT THE SAME ALSO TO TAX. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A), WHO NOT ONLY CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERRO R AND NOT CONSIDER THAT SERVICE TAX IS NOT A TRADING RECEIPT AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS CLARIFIED AS TDS NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED ON THE SE RVICE TAX COMMISSION INCOME RS.79,15,047.67 WAS DEDUCTED BY M /S.TATA TELE ITA NO. 723/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: SERVICES LIMITED AND REMITTED THE SAME INTO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, AS SUCH DEMANDING TO PAY RS.2,24,670/- IS NOT TENABLE AND NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS DID NOT CONSIDE R THAT THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OF RS.8,70,684/- IS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ANNUAL YEAR 2014-15, AS SUCH REMITTING THE AMOUNT A S CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT AR ISE. 3. THAT COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE RECEIVED IN KIND RATHER THAN IN CASH. 6. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING TO-DAY, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. TO-DAYS DATE WAS INFORME D TO BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE EARLIER OCCASION I.E., ON17-12-2019 . THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS HEARD EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. 6.1. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND NO T FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION MADE BEFORE TH E CIT(A). THEREFORE, I SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 12-02-2020 TNMM ITA NO. 723/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1. VOICE LINE TELE SERVICES, C/O.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO, ADVOCATE, PLOT NO.265/T, SARASWATHI NAGAR, SAIDABAD , HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.