ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Oasis Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 745/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3129 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R .K.PANDA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 745 /DEL/2016 A.Y. 201 2 - 13 ITO, WARD 19(1) ROOM NO.205 B 2 ND FLOOR C.R.BLDG. IP ESTATE NEW DELHI 110 002 VS . OASIS SOFTWARE P LTD. B 1, 1 ST FLOOR, ARJUN NAGAR NEW DELHI 110 029 PAN: AAACO3302J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. ATI Q AHMAD, SR.D.R RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 12.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 26/11/15 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - 7, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.82,16,916/ - MADE BY A.O. U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVIIB UNDER WHICH IT HAS TO BE DEDUCTED TDS @ 10% ON TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. 2. 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. 2 1.1. AS NONE HAS APPEARED AS ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13TH SEPTEMBER , 2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6, 15, 290/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. AO INVOKED PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.82,16,916/ - AND HELD THAT THE JOB WORK EXPENSES WERE OF THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES ON WHICH DEDUCTION OF TAX WAS TO BE MADE AT 10% AS PER SECTION 194J OF THE A CT AS AGAINST THE TDS DEDUCT ED BY ASSESSEE A T 1% AND 2% UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE A CT BY TREATING THE SAME IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACT SERVICES. 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY LD.AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING THAT ON THE SIMILAR FACTS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 BY THEN CIT(A) - 14, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 30/05/12, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSEE RIGHTLY CLASSIFIED THE EXPENSES OF CONTRACT SERVICES AND THERE WAS NO SHORT DEDUCTION O F TAX AT SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED BY THE THEN CIT(A) - 14. IT WAS THUS OBSERVED BY LD.CIT (A) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 30/05/12, WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16/10/15 IN ITA NO. 5174/DEL/2012, DISMISSED DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3 THE AO HAS SAID THAT THE WORK OF A MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST IS A TECHNICAL NATURE. HOWEVER FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DEFINITION GIVEN BY SECTION 194J, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT SERVICES RENDERED BY MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE KEN OF SECTION 194J OF THE A CT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT QUALIFY THE DEFINITION GIVEN UNDER THE SECTION FOR PROFESSIONAL S ERVICES AND FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST TO THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY CONTRACTUAL SERVICES OR AT THE BEST BE TERMED AS ESPECIALLY CONTRACTUAL SERVICES. THEREFORE, WE DO FIND N O MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND SO THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 2.2. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS LD.CIT (A) DELETED ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 3. W E HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY L D . S R . D . R . IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 3.1. IT IS OBSERVED THAT, RELIEF GRANTED BY LD.CIT (A) IS BASED ON DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE SIMILAR FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT (A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 . 2 . 2 0 1 8 . (R. K.PANDA ) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 8 T H FEB., 201 8 . MV 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI