9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; "On being show-caused why Rs. 86,04,049 will not be disallowed and added to the total income as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the learned authorised representative, vide letter dated October 20, 2010, replied that as no payment exceeding Rs. 50,000 was given to a vehicle, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) will not be applicable. Nay, the interpretation of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is that the payment made to a transporter below Rs. 50,000 in a year is not liable to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C. Hence, the payments exceeding Rs. 50,000 to the transporters is liable to deduct the tax. The assessee-company did not deduct tax on such payments to the transporters exceeding Rs. 50,000 to the tune of Rs. 96,01,585. Thus, the submission of the assessee-company is not tenable. Consequently, Rs. 86,04,049 is disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and added to the total income." Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated August 10, 2011. The Revenue prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat High Court, which reads as follows : "Provided further that no deduction shall be made under sub-section (2), from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year to the account of the subcontractor during the course of business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages, on production of a declaration to the person concerned paying or crediting such sum, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and within such time as may be prescribed, if such sub-contractor is an individual who has not owned more than two goods carriages at any time during the previous year : Provided also that the person responsible for paying any sum as aforesaid to the sub-contractor referred to in the second proviso shall furnish to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by it such particulars as may be prescribed in such form and within such time as may be prescribed ; or (ii) any sum credited or paid before the 1st day of June, 1972 ; or . . ." Mr. Saraf contended that if the assessee had furnished the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J before the undersigned showing that the same was deposited before ITO, (TDS) Ward-58(3) on December 30, 2009, where the time-bar of the case was on December 31, 2009. As per the inspection report on very day, it was ascertained that Form No. 15J was not deposited to that ward at all. The Inspector was deputed to verify whether Form No. 15J along with Form No. 15J were actually filed with the O/o the ACIT(TDS), Cir-59/Kol or not. As per the inspector reports the concern office could not finish any register or any Form No. 15J along with Form No. 15J. The allegation made by the assessee that the assessment was completed hurriedly and intentionally on December 28, 2010, whereas time barred of the case was as on December 31, 2010. The authorised representative of the assessee first appears to represent the case on August 25, 2010. S, from the period August 25, 2010, to December 28, 2010, he could not submit the copy of Form No. 15J along with Form No. 15-I as submitted to the before learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as new documents. The allegation of the learned authorised representative is quite illogical. As Form No. 15-I were not enclosed with Form No. 15J substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hasmukhbhai Shah in I. T. A. No. 1982.Ahd/ 2009 and also the decisions of my predecessors in the appellant's own case for the assessment year 2007-08 on the same issue and on the similar facts, it is held that the appellant had rightly not deducted tax at source under section 194C from transportation charges incurred by it, therefore, the same could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia)." The learned Tribunal without going deep into the questions held that the deletion of the disallowance was proper. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Tribunal opined as follows (page 394 of 1 ITR-OL) : "Learned representatives fairly agree that as the assessee had filed all the relevant Form 15J with the Department on June 5, 2008, and also before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) during the appellate proceedings, the case of the assessee is squarely covered in his favour, by decisions of the coordinate benches in the cases of, among other, Capital Transport Corporation of India v. ITO [2013] 1 ITR (Trib)-OL 369 (Kolkata) (I. T. A. No. 1753/Kol./2009). We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission." It would appear that the attempt to adduce additional evidence was made by the assessee on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a report. The Assessing Officer after making necessary enquiry and on the basis of evidence discussed in his report, opined that the assessee had manipulated the documents to escape the rigour of law. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not record any reason in his judgment to show that the aforesaid views of the Assessing Officer were unjustified nor did he record any reason to show that the assessee was entitled to adduce additional evidence because he had, in fact, been prevented from adducing the evidence at the appropriate stage or because the Assessing Officer did not give him sufficient opportunity to do so. Even, in a case where additional evidence may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
