2013 (3) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194H - Commission or discount to distributors of SIM cards/recharge coupons - AO observed that upto financial year 2007-08 assessee has deducted TDS on amounts paid on sale of recharge coupons by treating the same as commission - Non consideration of certain issues - Held that - issue raised in the additional ground and considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by passing a common order was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). Therefore the contention of the assessee that the additional ground has not been considered is not correct. Under these facts and circumstances pointing out non-consideration of additional ground in the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee does not amount to mistake apparent on record and it does not come within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act - Following decision of CIT v. Idea Cellular Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to consider certain issues in the appeal under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The judgment pertains to miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the Tribunal failed to consider certain issues while deciding the appeal. The main argument raised was regarding the treatment of income under section 194H of the Act, contending that only a portion of the discount given should be considered as income. The Departmental representative argued that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order and hence, the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. The Tribunal reviewed the records, including the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the additional ground raised by the assessee. It concluded that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had correctly decided the issue, including the alternative ground, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal cited a decision of the Delhi High Court to support its conclusion. It held that the additional ground was indeed considered by the Tribunal, and there was no error in the Commissioner's order. Therefore, the contention that the additional ground was not addressed was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the non-consideration of the additional ground did not constitute a mistake apparent on record under section 254(2) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the miscellaneous applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications, emphasizing that the issue raised in the additional ground had been duly considered and addressed in the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. The judgment highlighted that pointing out the non-consideration of the additional ground did not meet the criteria for a mistake apparent on record as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was pronounced on March 21, 2013, in Chennai.