2016 (2) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the assessment year 2006-07 claiming following substantial question of law:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 194CV are not applicable to the payments made by the assessee to the truck operators on account of transportation charges ignoring the fact that the payments were of sub contractual nature? ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,10,197/- made in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no tax at source was deducted by the assessee on sub contractual .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re held to be applicable. It was pleaded before the Assessing Officer that all the truck operators owned not more than two trucks and hence no tax was deductible. With regard to second proviso to sub section 3 of Section 194C of the Act, it was pleaded before the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not eligible for obtaining TAN and hence could not file Form 15-J before the Commissioner of Income Tax after obtaining 15-I Form from the truck operators. The assessee was eligible for obtaining TAN only when it had deducted tax as it could apply for the same within one month after deduction of tax as prescribed under section 203A read with Rule 114A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. After considering the reply submitted by the assessee, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the issue has already been decided against the revenue by this Court in ITA No.120 of 2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ludhiana vs. M/s Truck Operator Union, Adda Jodhan Mandi, Ludhiana) vide order dated 7.8.2012 wherein it was recorded thus:- "3.Learned counsel for the revenue has very fairly accepted that similar issue involved in respect of the same assessee for the earlier assessment year has been decided against the revenue by this Court in Commissioner of Income Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X