9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id reasons uphold the order of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No 359/Coch/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Sh S Mahadevan For The Revenue : Sh A Dhanaraj, SR DR ORDER This appeal, at the instance of the revenue, is directed against the CIT(A) s order dated 15.6.2016. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. 2 The grounds raised read as follows: The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Kottayam in so far as the points stated below are concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thereafter, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 on the ground that no tax was deducted on warehousing charges amounting to ₹ 4,49,716/- debited in the P L account. The reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was completed by disallowing the warehousing charges by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; since no tax was deducted on the warehousing charges paid by the assessee. 4 Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee contended that reopening of assessment is invalid and on merits, submitted that warehousing charges would not come within the ambit of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) CIT vs First leasing Co of India Ltd ( 241 ITR 248 (Mad) 5.1 The ld AR, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities and relied on the findings/conclusion of the first appellate authority. 6 I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. During the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued an office letter dated 1.12.2011 calling for details on many items. One of the items was warehousing charges paid and tax deduction on the same. The relevant portion of the letter of the Assessing Officer calling for the details of the warehousing charges paid and why tax was not deducted, read as follows In your profit loss account you ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 6.2 On considering of the assessee s reply, the Assessing Officer did not disallow the warehousing charges paid on account of non deduction of tax at source and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 20.12.2011. This clearly shows that question of TDS on warehousing charges paid by the assessee was considered by the Assessing Officer and the contention raised by the assessee was accepted. Therefore, there was no failure or omission on the part of the assessee to file full and true disclosure of material facts during the course or original assessment; such being the case, reassessment is only a change of opinion . For the said proposition, reliance is placed on the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
