Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Acit Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs Questnet Enterprises India Pvt Ltd., ... on 17 May, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ''बी' SMC यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' B' SMC BENCH : CHENNAI ी जॉज माथन, या यक सद य BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3222/CHNY/2017 नधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Questnet Enterprises India Income Tax, Pvt Ltd., Corporate Circle 5(2), NO.7, old No.9, 9th floor, Northern Chennai-34. Side Rain Tree, McNichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31.
[PAN AAACQ 1177 H ] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.B.Gowthaman, C.A सन ु वाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 17-05-2018 घोषणा क तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17-05-2018 आदे श / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in ITA No.234/16- 17/A-3 dated 29.09.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.
:- 2 -: ITA No.3222/CHNY/2017
2. Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue, and Mr.B.Gowthaman represented on behalf of the Assessee.
3. It was submitted by the ld.D.R that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of tax deduction at source by admitting fresh evidences. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be reversed.
4. In reply, ld.A.R drew our attention to Para Nos.4.8 & 4.9 at page-8 of order of the CIT(Appeals). It was further submitted that no fresh evidence has been produced before the Ld.CIT(A), and only Form-26AS, which was the evidence available before the ld. Assessing Officer, was considered by the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the order of CIT(Appeals) was liable to be sustained.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para No.4.9 of the order of CIT(Appeals) clearly shows that no fresh evidence has been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and what has been considered is only Form-26AS, which is a self-generated document as per data available with the Revenue. This being so, I find no error in :- 3 -: ITA No.3222/CHNY/2017 the order of CIT(Appeals), which calls for any interference. Consequently, the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 17th May, 2018, at Chennai.
Sd/-
( जॉज माथन)
(GEORGE MATHAN)
या!यक सद#य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
'दनांक/Dated: 17th May, 2018.
K S Sundaram
आदे श क त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकर आयु,त/CIT
2. यथ /Respondent 5. *वभागीय त न/ध/DR
3. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF