9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating the petitioner as an assessee in default in respect of the financial years 2007-08 to 2012-13 and aggrieved by the same, these five writ petitions are filed. We have heard Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri J.V. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income-tax Department. As could be seen from the material available on record, a show-cause notice dated 11.2.2013 was issued by the respondent informing that the petitioner failed to comply with the TDS provisions on the payments made on stake money as mentioned therein and therefore calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why an order under Sections 201 (1) & 201 (1A) should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in declaring the petitioner as a defaulter assessee is illegal and without jurisdiction since there is no provision under the Income-tax Act for making TDS with regard to the payments made towards stake money. According to the petitioner, the horse owners are liable to file their returns and the revenue is entitled to assess the same in accordance with law but the petitioner cannot be made liable for the same. It is also contended that Section 194B has no application at all with regard to payment made to horse owners by way of stake money or prize money which are paid from the own funds of the petitioner to the owners of winning horses. Even with regard to applicability of Section 194BB of the Income-tax Act, it is contended by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detail and negatived by the respondent in the impugned orders assigning reasons therefor. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the respondent arrived at the said conclusion on appreciation of various factual aspects relating to petitioner's business activity and the documents furnished along with its explanation. Therefore, it is only for the appellate authority to determine on examination of the record and on appreciation of the documents produced by the petitioner, whether the respondent has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding the petitioner as a defaulter assessee. That being so, the error of jurisdiction which the respondent has allegedly committed in passing the impugned orders is not a mere error apparent on the face of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
