ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shoeline, CHENNAI

ITA 910/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4788 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.910/CHNY/2016 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI-34. VS. M/S.SHOELINE, MF-5, DEVELOPED PLOTS, 1 ST FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHENNAI-32. [PAN: AARFS 8699 G] ( ' /APPELLANT) ( ()' /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MR.S.NATARAJA, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR. G.BASKAR, ADV. + /DATE OF HEARING : 13.02.2018 + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2018 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.910/CHNY/2016 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, C HENNAI, IN ITA NO.127/2014-15 DATED 12.01.2016 FOR THE AY 2007-08. 2. SHRI S.NATARAJA, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE AND SHRI G.BASKAR, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. ITA NO.910/CHNY/2016 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE APPEAL WA S AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE VARIOUS EXP ENDITURES DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AND A PPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SU BMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE SAME BY APPLYING THE PRIN CIPLES OF PAID, PAYABLE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HA D HELD THAT AS THERE WAS NO AMOUNT PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR, PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF THE NON-D EDUCTION OF TDS COULD NOT BE APPLIED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.DR WAS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE OF THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AND CONSEQUENT APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC .40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DONE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED U/S.143(3). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL HAD BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAD, VIDE HIS ORDER IN ITA NO.966/13-14 DATED 14.08 .2014, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PAYMENTS OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A S UBMISSION THAT WHEN GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE AO HAD MADE CERTAIN ERRORS IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER, AGAINST WHICH, THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED TO THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ITA NO.966/13-14 DATED 14.08.2014, NO APPEAL HAD BE EN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE TO THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE OR DER GIVING EFFECT TO WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD.CIT(A) HAD, IN PAGE NO.4 OF ITA NO.910/CHNY/2016 :- 3 -: HIS ORDER, HELD THAT THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT PASSED BY THE AO ON 15.10.2014 WAS ERRONEOUS AS THE LD.CIT(A) HAD CLEAR LY OBSERVED AND HAD GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER IN ITA NO.966/13-14 DATED 14.08.2014. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS ATTEMPTING TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) PASSED ON 14.08.2014 IN ITA NO.966/13-14. IT WAS A SUBMISSIO N THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MORE SO, THE O RDER PASSED U/S.155 DATED 15.10.2014 SHOWS THAT THE AO WHILE GI VING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ITA NO.966/13-14 DATED 14 .08.2014 HAS ATTEMPTED TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS HAS BEEN NEGATED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.01.2016. THIS IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) IN PAGE NO.4 LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, THE CIT(A) CLEARLY OBSERVES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE ATTRACTED ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHICH RS.1,31,03 6/- IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), SINCE ALL THE OTHER PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007 AN D WERE NOT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR, RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THESE PAY MENTS WAS TO BE GIVEN AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) DO NOT APPLY IN SUC H CASES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) ONLY TO RS.1,31,036/- AND ALLOW THE R ELIEF IN RESPECT OF ALL THE OTHER PAYMENTS AS GRANTED BY THE CIT(A)-VI IN HIS ORDER D ATED 14.08.2014. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEAL. ITA NO.910/CHNY/2016 :- 4 -: 7. THIS BEING SO, AS THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS AS ARRIVED AT BY THE LD.CIT(A ) IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 13, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2018. TLN + (12 32 /COPY TO: 1. ' /APPELLANT 4. 4 /CIT 2. ()' /RESPONDENT 5. 2 ( /DR 3. 4 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF