9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided partly in favour of assessee Addition to the claim of payment of wages - Held that:- The assessee debited a total amount of ₹ 2.29 crores towards wages under different heads such as wages, casual labour charges, civil work labour charges, etc., which is more than 57% of the gross receipts of the assessee. The assessee has not maintained proper registers and most of the payments are made in cash. Since the claim is not verifiable, the assessing officer was of the opinion that expenditure should be reasonable with reference to the gross receipts of the assessee. Having regard to the circumstances of the case he disallowed only 10% of the total claim of the assessee, which was also upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Even before us, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . But TDS details were not furnished. When called upon to explain as to why section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act should not be applied in the instant case, the assessee submitted that only a sum of ₹ 3,70,000/- is payable at the end of the year referable to proclaine hire charges and balance amount was paid before 31st March; Hence provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable in view of the decision of the ITAT Special Bench Visakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping (136 ITD 23). Similarly with regard to the crane hire charges, it was submitted that a sum of ₹ 32,000/- is outstanding/payable at the end of the year and the remaining is paid before 31st March. As regards Hydra hire charges, it was su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Special Bench is upset by this Court, it binds smaller Bench and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, it is not open to the Tribunal, as rightly contended by Mr. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel, to remand on the ground of pendency on the same issue before this Court, overlooking and overruling, by necessary implication, the decision of the Special Bench. We simply say that it is not permissible under quasi judicial discipline. Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgement and order, and restore the matter to the file of the Tribunal which will decide the issue in accordance with law and it would be open to the Tribunal either to follow the Special Bench decision or not to follow. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be restricted to ₹ 3,70,000/- (proclaine hire charges) ₹ 32,000/- (crane hire charges). 7. Ld. D.R. on the other hand strongly relied upon the orders passed by the tax authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Consistent with the view taken by the ITAT Special Bench Visakhapatnam and also in the light of the view expressed by the Hon ble A.P. High Court in the case of Janapriya Engineering Syndicate, we are of the opinion that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable in respect of the amounts already paid before 31st March. In other words, the A.O. is directed to restrict the disallowance to the amounts payable after 31st March. With these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
