9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , all the documents contained in the paper book were before AO and CIT(A) both. Hence this reconciliation statement was available before CIT(A) also. The CIT(A) has not pointed out any specific mistake in the reconciliation statement and he has simply stated that the assessee should have reconciled year-wise and ascertained the correct reason as to why such difference was there. In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) should have passed a speaking and reasoned order. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) out of Car Hire charges - HELD THAT:- Disallowance u/s. 40(a) (ia) out of Car Hire charges was decided by CIT (A) in a cryptic manner. In view of the above factual position, we are of the considered opinion that the entire issue in all the three years should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Hence we set aside the order of CIT (A) in all the three years and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 1491 to 1493/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lternate 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) ought to have heldthat additions made to the income returnedsolely by relying on the information contained in Form No.26AS is bad in law andaccordingly, ought to have directed the AO to delete following additions. Sr. No. Name of the Party Amount (Rs.) ( i) Glaxo Smithkline Consumers Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 63,08,029/- ( ii) Nova Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. 21,25,000/- Total 84,33,029/- 3. Disallowance of Car Hire charges of ₹ 4,45,600/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the provisions of Section 194-I apply to car hire charges for ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove should be granted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which maybe necessary. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 in ITA No. 1493/Bang/2018 are as under. 1. Disallowance of Car Hire charges of ₹ 1,50,000/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have heldthat the provisions of Section 194-I apply to car hire chargesfor deduction of tax at source and not Section 194-C and consequently, ought to havedirected the AO to delete disallowance of car hire charges of ₹ 1,50,000/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove should be granted. 3. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which maybe necessary. 5. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in Assessment Year 2012-13, one of the issues involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. From the above Para reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that the order is very cryptic. On page no. 22 of the paper book for Assessment Year 2012-13, the invoice is available in respect of Hong Kong Dollars 31,123 equivalent to ₹ 2,08,350/-. Similarly on page no. 29 of the paper book is the copy of another invoice for Great Britain Pound (GBP) 1,360.95 equivalent to ₹ 1,14,180/-, total amount of these two invoices in Rupees terms comes to ₹ 3,22,530/-. We fail to understand what is the objection of CIT (A) and what is the basis of his decision as per para 5 reproduced above. 11. The issue regarding addition of ₹ 84,33,029/- was decided by CIT(A) as per Para 6 of his order for Assessment Year 2012-13. For the sake of ready reference, this para is reproduced hereinbelow. 6. Ground no.2 is on the additions made to the income returned solely relying onthe information contained in Form No. 26AS of ₹ 84,33,029/-.Evenduring theappellate proceedings the appellant could not reconcile the difference. Though, the appellant reliedon few case laws for the propositions that the addition made to incomere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into agreements for car lease. As per the terms of the agreements the respective parties are not required to provide any services but it is the appellant who shall be using the vehicle on its costs. The agreements do not require the owner of the vehicle to do any work at all. The appellant pays a fixed sum for obtaining the car on lease. Section 194C contemplates for work being done and work is defined as including carriage of goods or passengers by any other mode of transport other than by railways. However, since no work is carried out by the vehicle owners, the provisions of Section 194C do not get attracted. As against the same, Section 194 I specifically contemplates liability with any person paying rent to deduct tax for use of any machinery or plant or equipment. Hence provisions of Section 194I gets attracted where an assessee takes machineries on lease and pays rent for the same. The appellant submitted that the payment for use of car gets covered u/s. 194I of the Act and not u/s. 194C of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer. That being so, the appellant, wherever the payment exceeded the threshold limit of ₹ 1,80,000/-, deducted tax at source thereon u/s. 194I o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax at source u/s. 194C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the extent to these two payments is hereby upheld. 14. From the above Para reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that this issue was also decided by CIT (A) in a very cryptic manner. 15. For the remaining two years also, the issue regarding disallowance u/s. 40(a) (ia) out of Car Hire charges was decided by CIT (A) in a cryptic manner. In view of the above factual position, we are of the considered opinion that the entire issue in all the three years should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Hence we set aside the order of CIT (A) in all the three years and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage. 16. In the result, all the three appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
