9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, on perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we note that there is no grievance to the Revenue that the learned CIT-A erred in admitting the additional evidences. Accordingly, we hold that there was no contravention of the provisions of rule 46-A of Income Tax Rules as alleged by the AO in the remand report. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 168/AHD/2020 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2023 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma , Sr. D. R For the Assessee : Shri Nitin Pathak , A. R ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad, dated 28/11/2019 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The ld. CIT-A in holding so has made reference to various judicial pronouncement. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The learned DR before us submitted that the assessee has not deducted the TDS on the expenses and therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the income under the head business and profession. 8. On the other hand, the learned AR for the assessee before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 52 and submitted that the assessee is not liable for the deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Act and therefore there cannot be any disallowance for the expenses as discussed above. 9. Both the ld. DR and the AR before us relied on the order of the authorities below to the extent favorable to them. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no ambiguity that the assessee is liable to deduct the TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act on the payment made to the transporters if exceeds the prescribed limit. However, the assessee has been provided an immunity from the deduction of TDS under subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o significant to note that the provisions as provided under subsection (6) and (7) to section 194C of the Act are independent to each other and therefore they cannot be read in conjunction. In other words, non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (7) to section 194C of the Act, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied as there was the compliance on the part of the assessee for the provisions as provided under subsection (6) to section 194C of the Act. 10.5 In holding so we draw support and guidance from the order Jaipur ITAT in ITA No. 1113/JP/2018 in case of ACIT vs. Arihant Tarding Co. reported in 104 taxmann.com 336 wherein it was held as under: In the instant case, once the assessee is in receipt of PAN and has not deducted TDS, it has complied with the first statutory obligation cast upon him and the assessee cannot be penalized for non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) which are deeming fiction relating to non-deduction of TDS have to be read in the limited context of non-deduction of TDS and the same cannot be extended to ensure that even where the assessee complies with his statutory obligation not to deduct TDS on receipt of PAN, merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the transport expenses but has added the amount outstanding u/s.68 of the I.T Act. The appellant has submitted the list of transporters whose payment was outstanding and evidences of payment made in the subsequent year from its ledger account. The document were forwarded to the AO who requested not to admit the additional evidences and submitted that genuineness claimed by the assesses could not be proved by any additional evidences. The appellant has submitted that it has already provided details of creditors during course of assessment proceeding? and only subsequent payment details has been furnished which has only in the nature of supporting and therefore the same may be admitted in the nature of justice. I agree with the submission made by the appellant that the AO has not doubted the transport expenses claim but has added the outstanding transporter, creditor on the ground of identity and genuineness. The appellant has submitted the evidence that outstanding liability subsequently paid by cheque therefore identity beyond genuineness has been established. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ayachi Chandrasekhar Narsangji 221 Taxman 146 (Guj) has held the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
