9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139(1) of the Act – thus, the CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 384/Jodh/2011 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2012 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri N. A. Joshi For the Respondent : Shri Anit Kothari ORDER Per N. K. Saini, A. M. This is an appeal by the Department against the order dated 25.08.2011 of the CIT(Appeals), Bikaner for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2.1 The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,89,433/- made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following case laws. 1. Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 139 CTR 364 (SC) 2. CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. , 319 ITR 306 (SC) 3. CIT vs Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) 4. Kanubhai Ramjibhai vs ITO 135 ITD 364 (Ahd.) 5. Bansal Parivahan India (P) Ltd. vs ITO 137 TTJ 319 6. Inder Prasad Mathura Lal vs ITO , 46 TW 1 (Jpr) 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had deducted the tax at source monthwise in respect of payments made by him for job work u/s 194C of the Act during the year under consideration by the end of the month in which payment was made. However, the same was paid into the Govt. accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tribunal) 746 (Chennai) 6. ACIT vs M.K. Gurumurthy (2012) 32 CCH 49 (Bang.) (Tribunal) 7. ITO vs Raviraj Enterprises (2012) 32 CCH 50 (Mumbai) (Tribunal) 2.6 In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.7 After considering the submissions of both the parties and the materials available on record, we are of the view that this matter is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench (wherein one of us Accountant Member is author) in the case of ACIT vs M.K. Gurumurthy (2012) 32 CCH 49 (Bang.) (Supra) wherein it has been held as under:- In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee deducted TDS which was not paid to the account of Central Govt. within the prescribed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
