9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 05.4.2007 and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai-34 [for short, the CIT(A)] dated 21.11.2017 and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether the Tribunal's order is grossly erroneous for not adjudicating the grounds and contentions specifically raised in the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant in a manner contrary to the law laid down by this Court in CIT Vs. Ramdas Pharmacy [reported in (1970) 77 ITR 276]? ii. Whether the Tribunal's order is grossl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of the assessee that they assailed application of Section 194C of the Act on interconnection usage charges (IUC) paid to other telecom operators, in the operative portion of the order, the Tribunal did not discuss the said issue nor rendered any finding. According to the learned Senior Counsel, on the contrary, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the alternate submission of the assessee and to a certain extent, accepted the submissions of the assessee and ultimately, without expressing any opinion on the ground of the assessee that they were not liable to pay tax at source in respect IUC payments to various telecom providers, set aside the orders passed by the Lower Authorities and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in (2015) 61 Taxmann. Com 263]. It is also submitted that this decision was noted by the Tribunal when it heard the stay petition and passed orders on 16.3.2018 granting stay of 50% of the demand on the ground that a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Kolkatta Bench of the Tribunal in the decision in the case of Vodafone East Ltd. 7. Per contra, Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that a detailed order has been passed by the CIT(A) wherein all the contentions of the assessee were taken into consideration including the decision of the Kolkatta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vodafone East Ltd. It is his further submission that if at all this Court is of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erators. Had the Tribunal considered and rendered a finding that it was not convinced with the submissions made, then, it would have been well justified to proceed to consider the alternate submissions. We find from the impugned order that the Tribunal has not rendered any finding with regard to the contentions advanced by the assessee relating to the applicability of Section 194C of the Act. 10. On a reading of the paragraph 4 of the impugned order, one gets an opinion that the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Lower Authorities in their entirety. Thus, if the remand is for a limited purpose, the Tribunal ought to have very well indicated in its order. In our understanding, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
