9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of AO for decision afresh. Needless to say that the AO would afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favor of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.1414/Ahd/2011, I.T.A. No.1415/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2015 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, AR For The Revenue : Shri D.C. Mishra, Sr.DR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals by different two assessees are directed against the separate orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Baroda [ CIT(A) in short] both identically dated 26/07/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. Since common i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in confirming disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of ₹ 4,58,971/- made by AO applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the submissions of the appellant in support of the claim that no TDS was deductible on the said payment. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have admitted the documents submitted and called for remand report from AO instead of denying the opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the claim. The order of ld.CIT(A) being against principles of Natural justice deserves to be quashed and opportunity be granted to the appellant. 4. Levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B 234C of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay. Therefore, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice. 2.2. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR opposed the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee. 2.3. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the Affidavit filed on behalf of the assessee. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case and considering the reasoning given by the ld.counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for filing the present appeal(s). Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1,2 3 are against confirming addition made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the payments were not exceeded ₹ 50,000/- and wherever such payments which exceeded ₹ 20,000/- has been accepted for disallowance. 4.1. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the ld.CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of ₹ 3,66,469/-, has held that the tax was required to be deducted. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that there was no contractual terms for the payment of commission. Alternatively, it is submitted that the concerned party has offered the receipts as income for the year under appeal and in respect of the second disallowance of ₹ 4,58,971/-, it is contended that the payments did not exceed the prescribed limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
