2023 (9) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ails of the operators to the department in the prescribed format as per the conditions laid down u/s. 194C(7) and the assessee has failed to furnish the relevant details in the prescribed form to the concerned authority, thereby failing to comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) - HELD THAT:- As assessee has already deducted and paid the said TDS amount and the revised return filed by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the assessee after due verification of the facts of the payment made by the assessee. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM And Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, JM For the Assessee : Shri Rashmi Vyas For the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t charges of Rs. 2,70,048/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order. 6. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before the A.O. and further the ld. AR stated that the assessee subsequently paid the TDS for the said amount. The ld. AR further stated that as the assessee has already paid the TDS amount due, the same should be allowed as deduction as claimed by the assessee. The ld. DR, on the other hand, controverted the said facts and stated that the assessee has not satisfactorily explained before the lower authorities as to why the TDS was not d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. The A.O. further held that non compliance of the provisions of sections 194(6) and 194(7) of the Act would attract the provision of section 194C(1). The A.O. invoked the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the impugned amount made to the transport agencies. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the A.O. It is observed that the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,70,048/- paid as transportation charges to three parties namely M/s. Sharma Transport Service (Rs. 2,42,164), Gawad Transport (Rs. 6,000/-) and Delux Roadline Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 21,884/-) for which the assessee claims that since payment to two parties is less than Rs. 30,000/-, the assessee is not entitled to deduct .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X