9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is also directed to examine the authenticity of the bills before coming to any conclusion - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on improving, i.e. increasing the height of factory shed - revenue v/s capital expenditure - Held that:- Out of the total expenditure incurred an amount of ₹ 6,64,535/- related to improvement of height of factory shed whereas balance amount of ₹ 7,14,879/- was incurred on improvement of floor, and walls of shed. However, since the assessee had not given any basis or supporting material for such bifurcation and even exact nature of the said miscellaneous work had also not been elaborated, therefore, the ld. CIT(App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 issued to him were also produced. Accordingly, ld. CIT(Appeals) correctly concluded that the payment was in nature of salary and not professional fee liable to deduction under section 194J.- Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 989/KOL/ 2012, I.T.A. No. 889/KOL/ 2012 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra and Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For The Department : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. D.R., For The Assessee : None (Adjournment rejected) ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra: The appeal being ITA No. 989/KOL/2012 filed by the Revenue and the appeal being ITA No. 889/KOL/2012 filed by the assessee are arising out of the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Kolkata both dated 26.03.2012 for the same a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counts submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted certain violation/lapses in regard to TDS. He observed that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C in respect of 28 parties mentioned at pages 1 2 of the assessment order. The assessee submitted Form 16A in respect of six parties for deduction of tax at source. Apart from this, in respect of 15 parties, as noted at page 2 of the assessment order, the assessee submitted details of gross bills and the job charges embedded in the said bills amounting to ₹ 14,12,322/-. As the assessee failed to offer any explanation for not deducting TDS from job charges, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit the additional evidence as the assessee could not point out as to why these bills could not be submitted before the Assessing Officer. 8. After hearing the ld. D.R. and perusing the material available on record, we observe that the nature of activity carried out by the assessee is not disputed and the nature of payments made to the said eight parties was similar to the 15 parties, therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) is also directed to examine the authenticity of the bills before coming to any conclusion. Resultantly Ground No. 1 stands allowed for statistical purposes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of ld. CIT(Appeals). Resultantly, this ground of assessee s appeal stands dismissed. 11. We now take up the ITA No. 989/KOL/2012 filed by the Revenue. Brief facts apropos Ground No. 1 are that it was submitted that the assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing of electrical panel boards. For this, he needed various items fabricated as per its specific requirements. It got such items fabricated from various persons as per its requirement and material for the same was also purchased by the said persons. Thus, the assesese had actually not given any contract for job work. Rather, it purchased the goods fabricated as per its requirements. The concerned persons were asked to give break up between material and job charges for keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 194C. We, therefore, confirm the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals). Resultantly this ground of Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. 14. In regard to Ground No. 2, we find that in the course of appellate proceedings it had been stated before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that provisions under section 194J were not applicable as such payment was made to employee of the assessee, Shri Sagnik Banerjee. He was working as design head for the assessee and had requested that his salary payment cheque may be drawn in the name of Apka Design Drawing . Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the request letter of Shri Sagnik Banerjee to this effect and copy of Form No. 16 issued to him were also produced. Accordingly, ld. CIT(Appeals) concluded that the paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
