9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 which has specifically brought the amendment with effect from October 1, 2004 and before that the assessee had made the payments each below Rs.20,000 there was no violation of section 194C - Held that: Assessing Officer is not justified in holding the deduction of tax at source for the payments made of Rs.1,04,54,670 and further not justified in making the addition of the said amount - Decided in favor of the assessee - I.T.A. No. 1884/Ahd/2011, - - - Dated:- 30-12-2011 - G.C. Gupta, B.P. Jain, JJ. J.P. Shah for the Appellant M. Mathivanan for the Respondent ORDER B.P. Jain, Accountant Member This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 30, 2004. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that section 40(a)(ia) is also not applicable because no tax had become payable within the meaning of that section. (III) Miscellaneous (1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted interest under section 234B of the Act. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted interest under section 234B,of the Act. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal." In ground No. 1(1) and (2) the assessee has agitated the reopening of the assessment as the conditions for validly opening were not satisfied and it was mere change of opinion. ..... The brief facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y he issued notice under section 148 of the Act on March 18, 2010. The assessee had challenged the said reopening before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The contention of the assessee was dismissed initially by the Assessing Officer on the ground .that for reopening of the assessment there is no need for gathering any new material and the case of the assessee has been reopened after re-examining, the records and on detection of the fact that excess deduction had been allowed to the assessee. We concur with the views of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amounts of each contract did not exist. The contention of the assessee was that the said provisions could apply only if the aggregate value of the sums due or paid after October 1, 2004 in the financial year 2004-05 aggregated to Rs.50,000 or more. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had failed to deduct tax on the payment to the contractors on the amount of Rs.1,04,54,670 and accordingly disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Mr. J. P. Shah, advocate of learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the provisions of section 194C where the amendment has been made by the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. We do not agree with contentions and arguments made by the learned Departmental representative, which is without any basis or cogent reasoning and therefore, no adverse view can be drawn against the assessee. As regards the arguments made by learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. J. P. Shah, advocate, the arguments were found to be convincing that before the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 which has specifically brought the amendment with effect from October 1, 2004 and before that the assessee had made the payments each below Rs.20,000 there was no violation of section 194C. Therefore, for such non-violation, the assessee cannot be penalised by the insertion of proviso which mentions of aggregate of amount credited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
