9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was deputed to India to work as Chief Operating Officer of Inautix Technologies India (P.) Ltd., an affiliate to Pershing LLC. The assessee continued to be the employee of Pershing LLC and he drew his remuneration from Pershing LLC for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. 3. The employer of the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as a result of which the assessee- discharged his entire tax liability that arose in India. The assessee was also liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) to the tune of Rs. 2.49 lakhs. This interest amount was, however, paid up by the employer. The assessee had also filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year in time. As the payment of tax was belated, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) since the Assessing Officer is not empowered to make any adjustments to the total income under section 143(1) with effect from 1-6-1999. (4) The CIT(A) failed to note that as per section 210 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee should pay advance tax on his own accord on his current income, calculating the advance tax as laid down in section 209. (5) The CIT(A) has failed to note that it is only the assessee who can estimate his current income and pay advance tax accordingly, after taking into account the tax deducted at source. (6) The CIT(A) also failed to note that the assessee is well aware of the fact that the tax has not been deducted from the salary and hence the assessee was liable to pay advance tax. (7) The CIT(A) ought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal and the statutory expression provided in the section is "adjustments" and not "adjustments of total income" as construed by the revenue. 9. The learned counsel has also relied on the direct decision of Tribunal Mumbai Bench "D" on the very same issue delivered in the case of Divine Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 119 Taxman 212 (Mum.) (Mag.). The learned counsel has also relied on a Special Bench decision of Tribunal Mumbai Bench "C" in the case of Sumit Bhattacharya v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 19 SOT 663 (Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that in a case where tax is deductible at source, an employee would not be liable for advance tax and in such a case, levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C is not justified. 10. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
