9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails to income tax authority in prescribed Form within prescribed time by payee may result in some adverse consequences but such failure cannot be visualised by adverse consequences provided u/s 40(a)(ia) – there was no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Payment for farmers awareness programme – Held that:- There is nothing on record to indicate that the expenditure is not genuine - farmers awareness programme was being conducted regularly by the assessee and assessee’s turnover is also increasing corresponding with the expenditure - Mr. Ummaheswara Rao has confirmed the payment and being an assessee also on record and the amounts were paid by way of cheque in the later year, there is no need to doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount and on verification found out that most of the amounts have been confirmed except in the case of one Mr. R.D. Rajesh Kumar to whom an amount of Rs.3,8,854/- was paid. For want of confirmation this amount was disallowed by the A.O. Assessee furnished confirmation along with Form 16A issued by the assessee-firm to Mr. R.D. Rajesh Kumar which was sent to the A.O. in the remand proceedings. Assessing Officer s objection was however, that this confirmation was dated just before conclusion of the assessment proceedings, hence, cannot be considered as genuine. 5.1. Learned CIT(A) considering the fact that most of the commission has been verified and accepted as reasonable and assessee also furnished confirmation along with Form 16A, notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 40(a)(ia). He was of the opinion that non-filing/delayed filing of relevant Forms does not result in disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Learned CIT(A) relied on the ITAT decisions in the case of Karwat Steel Traders vs. ITO ITA.No.6822/Mum/2011 dated 10.07.2013 and Vipin P. Mehta vs. ITO ITA.No.3317/Mum/2010 dated 20.05.2011. Accordingly, he directed the A.O. to allow the amount. 8. Considering the fact that CIT(A) decision is in line with the principles established by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad 92 DTR (Guj.) 267 wherein the Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that failure to comply with requirement to furnish details to income tax authority in prescribed Form within prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. was of the opinion that on verification of the returns, it is not verifiable whether the receipts from the assessee were included in the turnover and further there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Umamaheswara Rao has actually incurred expenses on behalf of the assessee. Considering the observations of the A.O. and the remand report, the learned CIT(A) considered the past record of such payments also and held that there is no justification for disallowance of the expenditure. Hence, the Revenue is aggrieved. 10. On considering the evidence placed on record and the reports of the A.O. we are of the opinion that Order of the Ld. CIT(A) requires confirmation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the expenditure is not genuine. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
