9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transporters have not acted on behalf of the assessee. They have transported the goods of APO. Considering these facts we do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2394/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, JM Anil Chaturvedi, AM. For The Appellant : Shri D. C. Mishra, Sr.DR For The Respondent : Shri Pratik Jain ORDER PER Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of CIT(A) dated 4th July,2011 passed for AY 2008-09. 2. The appeal was presented by the Revenue on 21st September, 2011. An acknowledgement-cum-notice for fixing the hearing in the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ganization, Ministry of Defense for which no expenses have been booked in books of account. The assessee has submitted supporting documents contending therein that it has not incurred any expenditure for freight. Therefore, it was not supposed to deduct TDS. The ld. AO has observed that Army Purchases Organizations (APO) entered into contracts with Gujarat State Co-op. Consumer Federation Ltd. who in turn further entered into contracts with several sellers/suppliers including the assessee for supply of the items ordered by APO as per terms of contract. On an analysis of the contract ld. AO observed that para 2 of the contract provides that incidental expenses shall have to be paid by the seller and, therefore, assessee was supposed to deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the P L account it would in fact give a distorted picture of the income of the appellant, since there is a time lag between the payment of freight amount and getting it reimbursed from the APO; in accordance with para-6.11(a) of the Tender, the transportation charges are to be reimbursed; in the same para, it is also clearly mentioned that tender should not include cost of transportation; since the appellant did not deduct the freight amount paid while computing the income, the question of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not arise. 6. With the assistance of the ld. representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. counsel for the assessee has appended copy of the form inviting tenders. This document is dated 18th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. As far as the C.O. is concerned, the Registry has pointed out that the CO is time barred by 1234 days. Though the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay wherein it has pleaded that file was lost and the CO could not be filed in time. We are of the view that the CO also deserves to be dismissed for two simple reasons namely it is time barred and no plausible explanation has been given by the assessee. Secondly sub-section (4) of section 253 of the I.T. Act, authorizes the respondent to file a Cross Objection within 30 days on receipt of notice in an appeal, such C.O. would be verified in the prescribed manner and it would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
