9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- originally made by the AO under section 68 of the Act." 2. The first ground of appeal is against addition of Rs. 8,74,77,630/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 3. The assessee is a transport contractor and commission agent and provided the service of plying trucks. During the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that the appellant had made payment to subcontractors of Rs. 8,74,76,630/-. On further verification of details submitted by the assessee it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee had obtained Form No.15-I under the I.T. Rule and not deducted TDS from transporters who owned less than two trucks but had been paid transport payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in the single trip and aggregate above Rs. 50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the assessment order, I find that the AO was correct in adding back Rs. 8,74,76,630 u/s.40(a)(ia) (I agree with the reason given by the AO summaries in para-5 above) because the appellant could not prove that there were different persons of the same name. To top it all the mandatory requirement of furnishing details of all 15-Is collected to the concerned Commissioner was not fulfilled by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings it was stated that Form 15-J was filed with JCIT(TDS) on 6.4.2007, copies of two pages of the annexure of Form 15-J were filed in this office. In the present matrix of facts I have my strict reservations about the authenticity of Form Nos.15-I claimed to have been collected by the appellant, rather the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al cases as obvious from the Annexure of the assessment order. Rather comical vague addresses have been given against several names. After all why should absurd vague details be accepted. The matrix of facts shows unverifiable expense of Rs. 8,74,76,630 -- No proper names (refer to the annexure of the assessment order) no proper addresses, no dates at all, no amounts whatsoever - and why this be overlooked coupled with not filling Form 15-J with the Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the appellant files his return, specially when the appellant is claiming deduction of not a rupee or two but of full Rs. 8,74,76,630. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee carries the matter before us. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year relevant to assessment year and what was payable as on 31st March of previous year of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the A.O. is directed to verify the amount paid and payable. As discussed above, the Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only amount payable as on 31st March of year under consideration further he also consider the findings given by the ld. CIT (A) in her order that the genuineness/authenticity of the expenses claimed of Rs. 8,74,76,630/- has not been proved. The A.O. is also directed to verify the genuineness of the transaction at the time of hearing and calculate the disallowance as per above finding. Thus, this ground of appeal is set aside to the A.O. as per the above finding. 7. In the result, on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
