J DUNCAN HEALTHCARE PVT LTD,ATGAON, SHAHAPUR, THANE V. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 , KALYAN, KALYAN

ITA 2371/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. J Duncan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the decision of the Addl. JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh, regarding the imposition of a late fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee argued that the late fee was incorrectly confirmed as they had not made any payments to the foreign parties (JSC OLS Ltd. and JSC Viterani) and thus no TDS returns were required to be filed. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments for the cancellation of the late fee but upheld the decision regarding the non-refundability of TDS on unmade payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P. KAUSHIK; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: AWADESH KUMAR; AR
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2371/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. J Duncan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. IT & Admin Office Address: A-345, Road No. 34, Wagle Industrial Estate Opp. Wagle Bus Depot Thane - 400604 [PAN: AABCD2256M] Vs Addl. JCIT(A)-2 अपीलाथ\u0012/ (Appellant) \u0014\u0015 यथ\u0012/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Awadesh Kumar, A/R Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)2, Chandigarh [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] dt. 13/03/2025 pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “(a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned JCIT has eared in confirming the late fees u/s 234E of Rs. 1,16,000/-. (b). That Learned JCIT has eared in not appreciating the facts that, the Russian parties were not having PAN in India and therefore tax was deducted @ 10% from the fees to be paid for rendering services in Russia. The deduction of TDS was made before rendering of services and before the payment was made as the company is maintaining accounts on mercantile basis. (c). That Learned JCIT has eared in not appreciating the facts that, the services were not rendered by the foreign parties therefore the accounts were reversed. (d). That Learned JCIT has eared in not appreciating the facts that, the refund of TDS could not have claimed by the company as the TDS was made in respect of payment to be made to the foreign parties. I.T.A. No. 2371/Mum/2025 2 (e). The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee debited payments to JSC OLS Ltd. of Rs. 74,66,667/- and deducted tax at source of Rs. 7,46,667/-. The assessee also debited payment to JSC Viterani Rs. 68,46,311/- on which tax was deducted at Rs. 6,84,631/-. 4. Since the payees do not have PAN, therefore, the returns of TDS could not be filed because of its non-acceptance for want of PAN. At the end of the financial year i.e., 31/03/2017, the assessee reversed the entries and did not claim any payment to JSC OLS Ltd. and JSC Viternai. Since no payments were made to the two parties there was no question of deducting tax at source and, therefore, there was no question of filing of any TDS return. 5. On peculiar facts of the case, we do not find any reason why late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act should be levied on the assessee. We accordingly direct the AO to cancel the levy of fee and delete the addition of Rs.1,16,000/-. Accordingly, Ground Nos. (a), (b) & (c), are allowed. 6. Insofar as, Ground No. (d) is concerned, there is no provision under the Act where the assessee can claim refund of TDS on the amount not paid by him. Therefore, Ground No. (d) is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 27th June, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27/06/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs I.T.A. No. 2371/Mum/2025 3 आदेश क \u0016\u0017त\u0018ल\u001aप अ े\u001aषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ! / The Appellant 2. \u0016\"यथ! / The Respondent 3. संबं&धत आयकर आयु(त / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु(त ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. \u001aवभागीय \u0016\u0017त\u0017न&ध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड. फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण ITAT, Mumbai "