GSB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO (TDS) 1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7432/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7714 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUM BAI , , , , ! BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.7432/MUM/2014 ( '# $# / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) GSB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. 78/80 ALI CHAMBERS, TAMARIND LANE, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) 1(4) MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCG7866N ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 24.03.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.03.2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING IGNORING THE LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT FILED BY AUTHORIZED ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJGURU M. V. ITA NO.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 2 PERSON, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL J USTICE AND FAIR IN PALY. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LA W, AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN CONFIRMING THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASS ED BY THE A.O. U/S.201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT, AND RAISING A DEMAND ALONG WITH INTEREST OF RS.16,181/- WITHOUT GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW, AND IN CIRCUMST ANCES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPE LLANT TO BSE OF RS.2,12,297/- TOWARDS MTNL LEASE LINE CHARGES, V SAT OPERATING CHARGES, DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O. PASSED U/S.201(1) AND 201 (1A) OF THE ACT, RAISING A DEMAN D ALONG WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE OF RS.2,12,297/- TO BSE U/S .194J OF THE ACT, WHEN THE APPELLANT DENIES THEIR LIABILITY U/S. 194J OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PAYMENT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS ON PAYMENT MADE ON PROFESSIONAL FEES U/S.194J OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT U/S.40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT THE TAX ON THE AMOUNT TO TH E TUNE OF RS.2,12,297/- U/S.194J OF THE ACT, THEREFORE TDS HAS TO BE DEDUCT ED @ 5.150 OF RS.10,933/- AND INTEREST U/S.201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.5,248/- AND WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN BRIEF THE ASSESSEE PAID THE LEASE LINE CHARGES OF RS.59,212/- , TRANSACTION CHARGES RS.93,733/- AND CDSL CHARGES RS.59,352/-. THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ITA NO.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 3 CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1 TO 4:- 4. UNDER THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,12,297/- TOWARDS MTNL ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE LINE CHARGES U/S.1 94J OF THE ACT ALONG WITH INTEREST AND VSAT OPERATING CHARGES AND TRANSA CTION CHARGES. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DU LY SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE US, THEREF ORE, HE WAS PROCEEDED AGAINST EX-PARTE. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS REPR ESENTATIVE NOWHERE REPRESENTED THE CASE. NO MATERIAL OF ANY KIND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID LEASE LINE CHARGES OF RS.59,212/-, TRANSACTION CHARGES RS.93,733/- AND CDSL CHARGES RS.59,352/- BUT FAILED TO DEDUCT THE T AX U/S.194J OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DEDUCT THE TAX AL ONG WITH INTEREST AS PER LAW, THEREFORE, WE NOWHERE FOUND ANY WRONG ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN Q UESTION. SINCE NO MATERIAL OF ANY KIND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO DIFF ERENTIATE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGL Y, ALL THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. ITA NO.7432/M/2014 A.Y.2008-09 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH MARCH, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 29 TH ! $% , 2017 MP & '$ / 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