, Û ,
,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "F", MUMBAI
[^ , , , ¢
Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member
And Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member
ITA NO.1793/Mum/2011 (AY: 2006-07 )
M/s. Vishaka Embroidery Income tax Officer
Pvt. Ltd. Ward-(1)(4), Rani Mansion
/
C/o. Shri Sadhuram 2nd Floor Murbad Road,
Vs.
Punjabi Kalyan.
310, Shiv Leela Apartment
Opp. Lassi Hall Nera
Hemraj Dairy
Ulhasnagar-421 001.
( /Appellant) (×/Respondent)
P.A. No.AACCV 0390 B
/Appellant by : Shri Sadhuram G. Punjabi
(Ex-Director)
× /Respondent by : Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla
/ /
Date of Hearing : 01/12/2014 Date of Pronouncement :
01/12/2014
/ O R D E R
PER JOGINDER SINGH (JM) :
The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated
30/10/2010 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai on the
2 I TA N O . 1 7 9 3 / M U M / 2 0 1 1
Vishaka Embroide ry P. Ltd.
ground that the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) decided the
appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts and further, not
considering the contention raised by the assessee that no
disallowance was called for, since the persons to whom payments
were made had already filed their returns including the amount
received from the assessee company and paid due tax thereon, as
such, no loss is caused to the Revenue, consequently, the assessee
has not committed any default of non-deduction of tax at source.
2. At the time of hearing, Shri Sadhuram G. Punjabi, appeared in
person and contended that he is in a position to substantiate its claim
as the due tax has already been paid. The ld. DR Shri Pawan Kumar
Beerla defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order.
2.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record. The case of the department is that the
assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.46,64,131/- on account of
payment towards job-work charges without deducting TDS and thus,
the Assessing Officer, in view of section 194C of the Act, disallowed
the expenditure invoking the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. We
note that the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) proceeded to
decide the appeal of the assessee, ex parte as the necessary details
could not be furnished by the assessee as is evident from para-4 of
the impugned order. However, before us, the ex-director of the
assessee contended that no loss to the Revenue is caused as the
persons to whom the payments were made had already filed the
returns, including the amounts received from the assessee company
and paid the due taxes. In view of this fact, and without going into
merits/much deliberation we remand appeal to the file of the
Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in
3 I TA N O . 1 7 9 3 / M U M / 2 0 1 1
Vishaka Embroide ry P. Ltd.
accordance with law, more specifically when the impugned order is
ex-parte qua the assessee. Needless to mention here that due
opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if
any, in support of his claim, must be granted to the assessee . Thus,
the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of
both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 1st Day
of December, 2014 .
01.12.2014
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Arora) (Joginder Singh)
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Û / JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 1st Dec. 2014.
../JV, Sr. PS.
/ Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. / CIT(A)-13, Mumbai
5. , ,
/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
/
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai.
,
|
