2018 (9) TMI 605 - HC - Income Tax

Addition in terms of section 40(a)(ia) - assessee s failure to deduct tax at source - assessee contented that payee had already paid tax - Tribunal was of the opinion that such claim had to be verified and instead of remanding the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals)remanded to the AO and also required the Assessing Officer to decide his own jurisdiction - Held that - For multiple reasons, we would make minor modifications in the order of the Tribunal. Firstly, there would be no purpose in remanding the proceedings before the Assessing Officer which would only add one more level to the proceedings. Instead CIT (Appeals) can examine the same aspects with the help of remand report from the Assessing Officer. Secondly, there is no purpose in asking the AO to decide on his own jurisdiction. Both the advocates agreed that let CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad who now has jurisdiction over the subject matter, decide the appeal afresh. The assessee s appeal is revived and placed before CIT(Appeals) Ahmedabad for consideration and disposal in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Participation of the assessee in the appeal process.
3. Remand of proceedings to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal.
4. Decision on jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the assessee's failure to deduct tax at the source. The Assessing Officer had made an addition to the income based on this provision. The Tribunal considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar case and emphasized the need to verify the claim made by the assessee regarding the applicability of the explanation added to the provision. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

2. The participation of the assessee in the appeal process was a crucial aspect of the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal earlier due to the assessee's non-participation despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal observed the irregularity in the proceedings and decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer instead of the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal highlighted the need to address the issue of non-appearance by the assessee and the disproportionate tax liability imposed.

3. The Tribunal's decision to remand the proceedings to the Assessing Officer raised questions about the efficiency and necessity of adding another level to the process. The High Court considered this aspect and decided that remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a remand report from the Assessing Officer would be more appropriate. Additionally, the High Court found no purpose in requiring the Assessing Officer to determine his own jurisdiction and suggested that the Commissioner (Appeals) in Ahmedabad, who now had jurisdiction, should handle the appeal.

4. The issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was addressed by the High Court, which proposed minor modifications to the Tribunal's order. The High Court decided that the appeal should be revived and placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Ahmedabad for a fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with the law. Both parties agreed to this arrangement, ensuring clarity on jurisdiction. The High Court directed the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings to facilitate a smooth resolution.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the Tribunal's judgment, reviving the assessee's appeal, and directing it to be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Ahmedabad. The High Court emphasized the importance of cooperation in the proceedings and clarified the jurisdictional aspect for a fair and lawful resolution of the case.