2015 (10) TMI 1423 - AT - Income Tax

Tds liability - CIT(A) treating the use of water front royalty u/s 194J against 194I by the A.O. - assessee filed additional evidences stating that the payments made are payable to Government of Gujarat, therefore, on these payments no tax was required to be deducted being payment to Government - Held that - considering the arguments and submissions of both the sides, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. We direct the assessee to produce all the evidences and explanation before the Assessing Officer; thereafter, the Assessing Officer is directed to examine whether the assessee is at all responsible for deduction of tax at source. If he comes to the conclusion that the assessee is liable for deduction of tax at source, then he will further adjudicate whether the tax was required to be deducted u/s 194I or 194J, and thereafter, he will arrive at the conclusion whether the assessee can be said to be in default u/s 201(1) or 201(1A). - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals filed by Revenue against orders of CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad for AY 2008-09
- Interpretation of tax deduction under sections 194J and 194I
- Admission of additional evidences by the assessee
- Setting aside orders and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer

Analysis:
1. Appeals by Revenue: The case involved appeals by the Revenue against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXI, Ahmedabad for Assessment Years 2008-09. The grounds of appeal focused on the deletion of orders passed under section 201(1A) for substantial amounts, concerning the use of waterfront royalty under sections 194J and 194I of the Income Tax Act.

2. Interpretation of Tax Deduction: During the hearing, the assessee contended that the payments made, including waterfront royalty, were State charges payable to the Government of Gujarat, thus not requiring tax deduction. The controversy arose from whether tax deduction under section 194J or 194I was necessary. The assessee sought admission of additional evidences to support the claim that no tax deduction was warranted, emphasizing the nature of the payments made.

3. Admission of Additional Evidences: The assessee applied for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 to establish that no tax deduction was necessary due to the nature of payments made to the government. The Revenue objected to this, arguing that the issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately, it was decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

4. Restoration to Assessing Officer: The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all evidences and explanations provided by the assessee to determine if tax deduction was required. The Officer was instructed to ascertain whether the assessee was liable for tax deduction under sections 194J or 194I, and subsequently, decide if the assessee could be considered in default under sections 201(1) or 201(1A).

5. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a detailed re-examination by the Assessing Officer to determine the applicability of tax deduction under the relevant sections. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded for further assessment by the Assessing Officer.