9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent years 2005-06 to 2012-13, wherein the assessee has paid above Rs. 20,000/- in respect of harvesting charges, transportation charges and law and consultancy charges for all the assessment years under consideration. In respect of A.Y 2005-06 in ITA No.348/PNJ/2014 wherein the assessee has paid above Rs. 20,000/- of Rs. 60,75,515 towards harvesting charges, Rs. 49,74,309/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 4,27,626/- on Law and consultancy charges. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was requested to produce the details regarding the harvesting charges and transportation charges paid in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in each and aggregating of exceeding Rs. 50,000/- paid to various persons. The assessee has paid harvesting charges, transportation charges and law and consultancy charges above Rs. 20,000/-. But the assessee has not deducted tax. Therefore, the AO disallowed the above payments u/s40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act 1961. Rest of the assessment years similar type of additions were made by the A.O. Similarly, in A.Ys 2009-10 to 2012-13 the AO has also charged TDS/Interest u/s201(1)/201(1A) in respect of the following payments made without TDS:- S.No Nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, I have come to the conclusion that: a) The issue of validity of agreement/contract between the appellant deductor and harvesting contractors for explaining the delay in filing the appeal on the part of the appellant is totally irrelevant to the issue of non deduction of TDS and consequent disallowance u/s40(a)(ia), which is only the issue discussed in the aforesaid order of the AO against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. b) The appellant has acted without due diligence for not filing appeals for periods extending to more than five years in some of its appeals(Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1919-PC-156 Baroda Rayon Corporn Ltd(Guj) 87 STC 266, M.Krishna Rao D Phalke Vs. Trimbak AIR 1938 Nag.156 Baldeo Lal Roy Vs. state of Bihar (1960) 11 STC 104 (Pat), M.Logannathan Vs. CIT (Mad) 302 ITR 139. c) Condonation of delay-Party has to show reason for delay fon the 1st day of limitation period and thereafter for each day thereafter-condonation in not a matter of right court has to excise the discretionary jurisdiction.(Rankak & Others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962 SC 361, JCIT Vs. Tractor & Farm Equipments Ltd (I.T.A.T., Chennai-TM) 104 ITD 149, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lish the existence of sufficient cause for the delay. g) The CBDT Circular No.6/2007 dated 11/10/2007 relied upon by the appellant does not help the case of the appellant in as much as it deals with allowability of harvesting and transportation expenses. The appellant in the present appeal has not been denied the allowance of such expenses as such. The issue at hand is non deduction of TDS on such payments made by the appellant to the harvesting contractors and consequent disallowance u/s40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act which is a statutory provision for disallowance of expenses on which TDS under the I.T Act has not been made. h) It is also seen that the assessee vide its letter dated 11-08-2014 for AY2012-13 filed after the filing of the present appeal before the AO has accepted that TDS was required to be made and they have not done so and this letter has been filed after the filing of the present appeal. The assessee's representative Shri S.K Kulkarni, Accounts Officer vide order sheet noting dated 04-02-2014 of the AO has also agreed to the additions of Rs. 2,23,85,157/- made by the AO for AY2012-12. Therefore, the appellant has already accepted that it was liable to make TDS as dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o proper TDS compliance. Orders under Section 201(1)/(1A) are passed on 19/3/13 for various years as tabulated below: A.Y Dt of Order Demand 09-10 19/03/2013 7,50,009 10-11 19/03/2013 96,762 11-12 19/03/2013 13,39,441 12-13 19/03/2013 11,77,551 Total 33,63,763 5.1 The assessee contended that the assessee has sought an opinion or advice from a Chartered Accountant in the matter of writing/deducting of TDS particularly with regard to the disallowance made u/s40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194C and TDS amount of interest u/s201(1/A) of the Act. The assessee got legal opinion from one Professor S.S Gupta, Ex-Principal, K.G Law College, Hubli. As per his opinion/advice the huge demand made by the AO is not tenable. The ld.AR submitted that there is delay from assessment 2005-06 in filing the appeal by six years 3 months and so on. But the assessee took the legal opinion. The ld.CIT(A) on merit has not admitted the appeal. Thus, he prayed before us the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and matter may be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. 6 The ld.DR has objected to it. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of both the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
