9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee, in this case is a partnership firm and is in the business of transportation of coal as a contractor. It filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009- 2010 on 21.10.2010, admitting total income of Rs. 14,53,190. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 22.12.2011. The Ld. CIT, Vijayawada passed an order under section 263 of the Act, setting aside the assessment and directing the A.O. to re-do the assessment de-novo on the matter specified in para- 2(a)(b)(c) which reads as follows : "2. On examination of the above proceedings and connected record, it is seen that the A.O. has not conducted due probe (enquiries) on various issues, of which, the core issues alone are specified below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the revision was directed by the Ld. CIT was that the A.O. had failed to invoke section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on freight charges paid by the assessee to 20 vehicles without deducting tax at source. The assessee relies on the following case laws and submits that there is no requirement of deducting tax at source under section 194C, when there is no written contract between the truck owners and the assessee. i. CIT-I vs. Valibhai Khanbhai Mankat (2013) 216 Taxmann 18 (Guj.) ii. Chandrakant Thackar vs. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ 1 (ITAT - Cuttack Bench) iii. ITO vs. Bhoruka Roadlines Ltd., 115 TTJ 383 (Mum.) iv. City Transport Corporation vs. ITO 13 SOT 47 (Mum.) 4.2. It is the case of the assessee that each trip should be treated as a separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings by the A.O. and hence the grievance cannot be doubted. He argued that there is neither error in the assessment order nor prejudice was caused to the revenue and hence, revision on this ground is bad in law. 6. On the third issue of unmatched financial charges, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, explained that the loan liability of the assessee is taken on a gross figure (i.e., Principal + Interest) and the contra entry of interest amount is shown on the assets side of the assessee's balance sheet and is disclosed as unmatched financial charges. The interest charged during the year is reduced both from the unmatched financial charges and the loan account. Thus, it was argued that there is no error much less prejudice c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the provisions of section 194C of the Act. This is a possible view. We do not find any error in the order of the A.O. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT on this issue is bad in law. There is no error in the order of the A.O. warranting revision under section 263 of the Act. 8.2. On the second issue of disallowance of loading and un-loading charges, the Ld. CIT has based his conclusions on surmises and conjectures. There is no material before the Ld. CIT to come to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee is not genuine. Such suspicion cannot be a ground for review. Hence, the same is quashed. 8.3. On the third issue of unmatched financial charges, there is no finding of the Ld. CIT that there is an error in the assessment order much le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
