9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 26,76,722/- which was made by the Assessing officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non deduction of TDS as per provisions of section 194C of the IT Act against freight charges. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in accepting assessee's contention that since deductees submitted Form 15-I before the assessee it had no liability for deduction of TDS against freight without appreciating the facts that assessee was liable to submit Form 15-I before the IT Authority as per Rule 29D to authenticate the claim. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case the order of Ld CIT (A) is perverse, hence same may be set aside and order of A.O be restored." 2. The facts on the above issues are that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. I also found from the details of the parties from whom TDS was not deducted that in most of the cases the PAN of such persons were mentioned. It also appears that the A.O (TDS) issued the notice to the assessee for the reason that in some of the cases PAN of the deductees were not mentioned in the return of TDS. The assessee replied as to why in some of the cases PAN's were not mentioned. From the reading of section 194C, it appears that once the assessee has received form No. 15-I he is debarred from deducting the tax. The submissions of the forms before the concerned authorities is not a condition precedent. Further more even if there are some defects in such forms , if such forms in substance are in conformity with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the precedents. We find that I.T.A.T., Kolkata Bench 'B' vide its order dated 11/8/2011 in the case of Capital Transport Corpn. of India vs. ITO (supra), on identical facts and circumstances of the case and following the decision of I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench dated 20/5/2011 in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta vs. ITO in ITA No.3317/Mum/2010, has directed to delete the addition made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The relevant finding is reproduced below :- 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the records of the case. ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta vs. ITO in ITA No.3317/Mum/2010 vide order dated 20.05.2011, has, inter alia, held as under :- ".............All these provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions have been reproduced in Para-7(ii) at page-4 of Assessing Officer's order. After considering the assessee's submission Assessing Officer, inter alia, observed that assessee did not submit form 15J by 30.06.2006 because he had not received form 15-I. He was of the view that 15-I was received subsequently when the assessee was confronted with the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The availability of form15-I, however, at the time of assessment proceedings is not doubted. Therefore, in view of decision in the case of Shri Vipin P. Mehta (supra), Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 24.74.376/-. In the result, ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed." In view of the aforesaid decision of I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
