2017 (12) TMI 1702 - HC - Income Tax

High Court allows review application, sets new hearing date for reconsideration

The High Court allowed the review application, recalling the order dated 30th April, 2014 concerning ITAT no.126 of 2013 and G.A.no.3461 of 2013. The ... Review petition - Payment made without deducting any tax at source - alternative point urged, of the payee being exempted from payment of income tax - HELD THAT:- We have by our order in CIT vs Central Roller Flour Mills Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1672 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] held that review is possible in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are satisfied that the assessee has made out good ground for review. Issues involved:1. Review of order dated 30th April, 2014 regarding ITAT no.126 of 2013 and G.A.no.3461 of 2013.2. Disallowance of payment under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source.3. CIT(A) reversing assessing officer's order based on a judgment without detailed discussion.4. Assessee's contention of exemption from tax deduction due to payee's tax exemption.5. Unavailability of raising mixed question of law and fact for the first time.6. Filing of additional evidence application in the High Court for review.Comprehensive analysis:1. The judgment dealt with a review application regarding an order dated 30th April, 2014 concerning ITAT no.126 of 2013 and G.A.no.3461 of 2013. The appellant sought a review of the decision, which was granted by the High Court based on the grounds presented.2. The assessing officer disallowed a payment made by the assessee to a party without deducting tax at source under Section 40(a)(ia), adding the amount to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, citing a judgment without detailed analysis, leading to an appeal by the revenue.3. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, prompting the revenue to challenge it. The court noted the revenue's contention that the Tribunal's judgment was unmeritorious and should be set aside.4. The assessee argued that the payment was made to a party exempt from tax, justifying the non-deduction. However, this argument was not raised earlier, leading to a debate on whether a mixed question of law and fact could be introduced for the first time.5. The appellant contended that the issue of tax exemption for the payee was not raised before the assessing officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal initially. The CIT(A) based its decision on a specific judgment, not considering the alternative argument presented by the appellant.6. An application for the production of additional evidence was filed in the High Court during the review process. The court acknowledged the submission of written notes before the CIT(A), which was not considered during the initial order, leading to the allowance of the review application.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the review application, recalling the order dated 30th April, 2014. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on a later date, considering the additional evidence and arguments presented during the review process.