9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves two main Issues: a) Whether the deletion of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the learned CIT (A) is justified. b) Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,21,486/- relating to the excess claim of expenditure by the learned CIT (A) is justified. Issue a - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): The assessee, an individual operating as a Transport Contractor, had discrepancies in expenditure claims and TDS deductions. The Assessing Officer disallowed excess expenses and TDS not deducted on hire charges. The Assessing Officer invoked Sec.40(a)(ia) due to failure to deduct TDS. The assessee appealed to the CIT (A) and relief was granted. The revenue appealed the decision. The Departmental Representative argued that Sec. 194C applies to hire charges, supporting the disallowance. The Authorised Representative cited precedents in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Sec. 194C(1) wasn't applicable for the assessment year in question. Considering previous decisions and the CIT (A)'s decision, the Tribunal upheld the relief granted by the CIT (A) on this issue. Issue b - Excess Claim of Expenditure: Regarding the excess claim of Rs. 6,21,486/-, the Departmental Representative argued that fresh evidence was considered without the Assessing Officer's knowledge. The Authorised Representative didn't object to setting aside this issue for re-examination. The Tribunal found that the matter of excess claim needed further examination based on the fresh evidence presented. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (A)'s decision on this issue and directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the matter in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal upholding the relief granted by the CIT (A) on the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) issue and directing a reexamination of the excess claim of expenditure issue.
|
