2014 (1) TMI 648 - AT - Income Tax

Maintainability of Appeal Introduction of additional ground - The CIT(A) has specifically noted in the order that AO s action has been accepted by the assessee and short taxes along with interest have been deposited thus the appeal of the assessee has become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed- It would amount that the assessee has agreed and consented to the order of the AO in raising the demand against the assessee - It is well settled law that no appeal lies on the agreed additions Relying Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs CIT 1967 (2) TMI 8 - BOMBAY High Court . The assessee did not challenge this finding of the CIT(A) in the present appeal - the appeal of the assessee would not be maintainable in the present form - the assessee admitted his mistake in short deduction of tax and produced copies of bills and evidences of tax demand and interest - the grievance of assessee against the order dated 05.03.2009 has already been taken care of by the AO in rectification proceedings - No appeal lies before the CIT(A) against the same order - Though the assessee has raised the present additional ground but no supporting documents have been filed to prima facie prove that whatever payments have been made to these parties - whether they have declared the same income before the Income-tax Authorities and have paid taxes on the same or not - additional ground could not be taken into consideration in the absence of any evidence Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Short deduction of tax on professional and contractual payments under sections 194C, 194-I, and 194J of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09, where the AO found tax not deducted on professional and contractual payments as required by the IT Act. The AO computed the tax liability, leading to a demand against the assessee. The assessee admitted the mistake and deposited the tax during the appeal proceedings, which led to a reduction in the demand. The ld. CIT(A) found the appeal infructuous as the assessee accepted the AO's action and deposited the short taxes along with interest. However, the tax deposited was less than the computed amount, requiring the assessee to deposit the balance.

2. The assessee challenged the short deduction in payments made to certain professionals. The issue was narrowed down to the short deduction in the case of two individuals. The AO rectified the order, calculating the short deduction and interest. The assessee did not appeal against this rectification. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee agreed to the demand, and the short taxes with interest were deposited. The appeal was found to be non-maintainable as no challenge was made against the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and no appeal was filed against the rectification order.

3. The additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the AO to demand further tax when the payee had already paid tax was not entertained as no supporting documents were provided. The Tribunal held that since the assessee agreed to the demand and rectification, no appeal could be maintained. The additional ground was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal, stating it had no merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that no appeal lies on agreed additions and that the additional ground raised without supporting evidence could not be considered. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order and upheld the dismissal of the appeal.