9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 11-8-2011 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. M. Surana For the Respondent : Shri S. K. Roy ORDER Per S. V. Mehrotra, A. M. The assessee has preferred this appeal for assessment year 2006-07 against order of Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 21.08.2009. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :- 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing lorry hire payment of ₹ 24,74,376/- U/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act,l961 for non deduction of TDS as the owners of lorries furnished Form No. 151 to the appellant firm before the date of payment of lorry hire. 2. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee used to engage a sub-contractor to carry out the job and paid him hire charges for his vehicle. Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown lorry hire charges amounting to ₹ 3,44,11,095/-. Assessing Officer noticed that out of this payment assessee was under obligation to make deduction under section 194C in respect of payments aggregating to ₹ 1,54,16,846/-. Before the Assessing Officer, assessee had explained as under :- .At hearing stage the A/R stated that particulars of payments are maintained as per the truck numbers. But, the annexure to Form 26Q may contain only the names of persons as defined in the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee could not provide any reconciliation to establish whether any TDS were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the only default of assessee was nonfurnishing of form 15J alongwith form 15I. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has relied on the following decisions for the proposition that even if form 15I/15J received are not submitted to Ld. CIT(A), 194C will not apply :- (i) ITO vs. Shri Chandan Gopal Shroff in ITA No. 844/Kol/2008 of Kolkata Bench vide order dated 31.07.2009. (ii) ITO vs. M/s. Ashabhai Babarbhai Patel Co. in ITA No.2195/AHD2010 of Ahmedabad Bench vide order dated 10.12.2010. (iii) Shri Vipin P. Mehta vs. ITO in ITA No. 3317/Mum/2010 of Mumbai Bench vide order dated 20.05.2011. (iv) ITO vs. Rajesh Kr. Garg in ITA No.532/Kol/2011 of Kolkata Bench vide order dated 05.08.2011. 5. We have consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We therefore accept the assessee s appeal and delete the disallowance of interest of ₹ 7,87,291/-. 6. In the present case before the Assessing Officer assessee had submitted that form 15-I received by him could not be deposited with the Ld. CIT. Assessee s submissions have been reproduced in Para-7(ii) at page-4 of Assessing Officer s order. After considering the assessee s submission Assessing Officer, inter alia, observed that assessee did not submit form 15J by 30.06.2006 because he had not received form 15-I. He was of the view that 15-I was received subsequently when the assessee was confronted with the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The availability of form15-I, however, at the time of assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restrict the disallowance to ₹ 36,000/- in respect of interest payment to Smt. Koshalya Devi Heda as against ₹ 1,08,002/- made by the Assessing Officer, inter alia, observing as under :- .However no TDS was deducted in respect of payment of ₹ 36,000/- to Ms. Koshalya Devi Heda nor Form 15-J alongwith form 15-I was furnished before the Commissioner of Income Tax concerned. Though the A/R claimed that form 15-I was obtained by the Appellant no evidences in this regard was filed before me. The decision relied on by the A/R were not on the issue at hand. The decision in the case of Sudarshan Auto general finance referred to above was concerned with levy of penalty. The other decisions are also not on the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
