9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the recipients of amount from the assessee) had furnished the Form 15-I (b) ₹ 1,903/- representing difference of amount received from the insurance company and the written down value of asset, which was considered while computing the allowable depreciation as provided in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. 2.1 None attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing the appeal. However, the written submission was filed by the ld. AR of the assessee with the prayer to decide the appeal on merit accordingly. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 3.1.2 (i) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The appellant is engaged in the business of transportation of goods using own truck as well as hired trucks and other heavy goods vehicles owned by others. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 25-10- 2010 determining total income of ₹ 5,07,380/ again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22- 09-1972, was not noticed by the Assessing Officer. This was not a case of information on a question of law. The dispute as to whether re opening is permissible after the audit party expresses an opinion on a question of law is now being considered by a larger Bench of this court. There can be no dispute that the audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment. Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. In view of that we hold that reopening of the case under section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under appeal is set aside to this extent. (v) Thus it is clear from the above referred decision of Hon'ble Apex Court that it upheld the reopening uu147 of the Act on the basis of factual matters brought to the notice of AO through audit para. It is a mater of fact that the appellant has not deducted tax at source while making payment to sub-contractor (Shri Arihant Jain) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 147 of the Act was solely based on the objection of audit para, therefore the reassessment proceedings are not valid. The assessment framed u/s 147 is null void. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, I do not support the decision of the ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the reassessment proceedings and hold the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as null and void. Thus this ground of appeal is decided in favor of the assessee assessee and direct the AO to restore the total income as determined u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.10.2010 as the assessed income for the AY 2008-09. 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 (a) and 2(b) of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 3.2.2 Determination 2(A) (i) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, material placed on record and the assessment order. The appellant made payment of ₹ 3,60,000/- to Shri Arihant Jain without TDs in violation of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the appellant failed to file Form No. 15-I within the stipulated time with the prescribed authority. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 194(c(3) of the Act and the Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs referred to in Sub-rule (3) shall be furnished. (i) to the Commissioner of Income-tax, so designated by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, within whose area of jurisdiction, the office of the contractor referred to in subrule (3) is situated. (ii) Thus it is noted from the above provisions that if the contractor receives Form No. 15-I from any Sub-Contractor for non-deduction of tax at source, then the said 15-I shall be furnished to the designated Commissioner within the stipulated time. (iii) It was the contention of the appellant that at the original assessment stage, the original form 15-I were produced before the AO and being fully satisfied, the AO did not draw any adverse inference, however, the appellant failed to substantiate its contention with any evidence. During appellate proceedings, the A.R. was required to file the evidence when the Form No.15-I was issued by Shri Arihant Jain were filed with the prescribed authority, however, the same was not furnished and it was submitted that the same is not traceable. Thus the appellant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 29D and it has not deducted tax at source and thus violated the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
