9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be relooked by the A.O. We therefore restore the issue back to the file of A.O. and direct him to consider the submissions of the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the issue and decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to co-operate by filing promptly the required details called for by the authorities. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.964/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2023 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri A K Arora, Sr DR ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is now in appeal in second round and has raised the following grounds:- 1(i). That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 25,73,070/- in terms of provisions of sec. 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the alleged ground that there was default in compliance to provisions of sec. 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) That finding and conclusion of the lower authorities is without proper appreciation of facts and provisions of sec. 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That there was no default in terms of provisions of sec. 194C as various payments made under reference were not covered for any TDS us. 194C of the Income Tax 2. That in the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of assessment proceedings A.O. noticed that assessee had made payment aggregating to Rs. 25,73,070/- to sub-contractor but had not deducted TDS u/s. 194C of the Act. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the disallowance not be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessee made the submissions which were not found acceptable to A.O. The A.O. thereafter by invoking the provisions of u/s. 40(a)(ia) disallowed of Rs. 25,73,070/- apart from the other various disallowance. 8. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the order of the A.O. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee is now before us. 10. Before us, Ld.AR reiterated the submission made before the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration and the copy of which is placed at page no 43 of paper book. From the aforesaid table she pointed to the instances where the payments made to individual parties are below the limit prescribed u/s. 194C for deduction of TDS. We however find that there is no finding of the lower authorities on this issue. We are therefore of the view that the issue as to whether these payments are below the prescribed limits needs to be relooked by the A.O. We therefore restore the issue back to the file of A.O. and direct him to consider the submissions of the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the issue and decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to co-operate by filing promptly the required details calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
