9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act attracted on non payment of TDS dues in Government account beyond the due date for filing of appeal and the said amendment introduced by finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,97,000/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act for payment exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 3. Ground Nos.4 and 5 are general in nature hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the disallowances and thereby addition made by A.O. are not sustainable in law. He is directed to delete such expenditure. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 1,96,24,849/-. 6. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the various decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. These grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 relates to addition of ₹ 1,97,000/-made u/s 40A(3) of the Act for payment exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash. 8. The A.O. during the assessment proceeding observed that assessee has made payment to various persons and in the following cases assessee has made payment in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not properly appreciated the facts and submissions on this issue. The A.O. failed to appreciate the procedure followed by the appellant. No independent inquiries were made in this regards by the A.O. to evidence that payment of ₹ 20,000 or more is made to a person for labour charges. The submission of appellant dt.18/04/2012 with copies of vouchers for such expenditure clearly reflect that payment of varied amount below 20,000 to various labour on a day is made through mukadum i.e. supervisor and therefore section 40A(3) of the Act is not applicable. There is no finding to controvert this proposition of appellant which is an established practice of the trade. The appellant cannot be penalized for established practice of account k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
