9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew taken by the CIT(Appeals), who had rightly upheld the liability fastened upon the assessee u/s. 201(1) 201(1A) of the Act by the A.O. Decided against assessee. - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : S/shri Arvind Chand Surana Nilesh Jain, Cas For the Respondent : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 201(1) 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 19.03.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 201(1A) of Rs. 80,856/-, as under: 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the A.O. raised a demand u/s.201(1) 201(1A) of the Act of Rs. 3,29,471/- [Rs. 1,63,503/- (+) Rs. 1,65,968/-]. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. The CIT(Appeals), while upholding the view taken by the A.O, observed as follows: 5.1 I have gone through the facts of case and grounds of appeal. The ITO TDS has correctly identified the payment where tax was to be deducted by the appellant. No where it is denied that such payment were not liable to TDS. There is also no other documentation available with the appellant whereby it can say that the deductee owned up to pay the taxes. And if on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghtful consideration and am of the view that as the delay involved in filing the present appeal is for bonafide reasons, the same merits to be condoned. 10. Apropos the issue involved in the present appeal, i.e., sustainability of the order passed by the A.O u/s. 201(1) 201(1A) of the Act, wherein the assessee has been held as being in default for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C and u/s. 194J of the Act, the Ld. AR had failed to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). Apart from that, it is not the case of the assessee that as respective payees having included the aforementioned amounts in their respective returns of income and paid taxes on the same, it was, thus, not liable to be held as being in def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
