9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 705 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Revenue filled cross appeals against orders of revision - Held that - The provisions of the Act does not provide for filing of Cross Objection against the order passed U/s. 263. It is trite law that no appeal is maintainable unless the statute expressly provides for the same. Keeping in view of this settled legal position, we hold that the Cross Objections filed by Revenue are not at all maintainable, hence dismissed as such. - Decided against revenue Directions of CIT for making addition in respect of payments made under the provisions of Section 40A(3) - Held that - As in the case of M/s. Coramandal Fertilizers Ltd., no cash payments were made and in the case of M/s. Ravindra Agro Service Centre, it is clear that no payments in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/- were made. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Ld. CIT-DR. Hence, we had no option but to hold that the provisions of Section 40A(3) are not applicable to the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of TDS on interest payment - Held that - Neither the AO nor the CIT disputed the fact of filing copy of Form 15H before the AO. No doubt, it is fact that the appellant failed to produce proof in support of dispatch of Form 15H to the CIT. In our considered opinion, this by itself does not entail any addition. It is only technical breach of law and the act provides for separate penal provisions for such default. Therefore, no disallowance can be made and to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. See Vijaya Bank Vs. ITO 2014 (3) TMI 539 - ITAT DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal Barred by Limitation 2. Payment of Requisite Fee 3. Delay in Filing Cross Objections 4. Maintainability of Cross Objections against Orders under Section 263 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal 6. Error in Assessment Order under Section 143(3) 7. Application of Section 40A(3) for Payments to Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. and Ravindra Agro Service Centre 8. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Interest Payments 9. Legality of the Order Passed under Section 263 Detailed Analysis: 1. Appeal Barred by Limitation The Revenue's Cross Objections were filed with a delay of 13 days. The Tribunal condoned this delay, citing that it was short and in the interest of justice. 2. Payment of Requisite Fee The Revenue's Cross Objections also raised the issue of the appellant failing to pay the requisite fee as per subsection (6) of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Delay in Filing Cross Objections The Tribunal noted that the relevant law governing the Cross Objections is found in Sub-Section 4 of Section 253 of the Act. It was observed that the Act does not provide for the filing of Cross Objections against orders passed under Section 263. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Maintainability of Cross Objections against Orders under Section 263 The Tribunal held that the Cross Objections filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the provisions of the Act do not expressly provide for such filings against orders under Section 263. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal The appellant's appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days. The delay was condoned as it was due to a bona fide belief that no appeal was necessary against the order under Section 263, and the Ld. CIT-DR expressed no objection to the condonation. 6. Error in Assessment Order under Section 143(3) The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 263, arguing that there was no error in the assessment order under Section 143(3) that determined the total loss at Rs. 4,85,000. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT had issued a show cause notice under Section 263, requiring the appellant to explain why the assessment order should not be revised to make additions under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia). 7. Application of Section 40A(3) for Payments to Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. and Ravindra Agro Service Centre The appellant contended that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not applicable as no cash payments were made to Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd., and payments to Ravindra Agro Service Centre did not exceed Rs. 20,000 on any single day. The Tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not applicable, allowing this ground of appeal. 8. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Interest Payments The appellant argued that interest payments were made to coparceners whose taxable income was below the taxable limit, and Form 15H was obtained and submitted to the AO. The Tribunal found that the failure to dispatch Form 15H to the CIT was a technical breach, which should not result in disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. ITO, concluding that no disallowance could be made under Section 40(a)(ia). 9. Legality of the Order Passed under Section 263 The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the CIT under Section 263, holding that it was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Cross Objections of the Revenue were dismissed. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the Cross Objections of the Revenue, concluding that the provisions of Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) were not applicable in this case, and the order passed under Section 263 was not justified.
|
