M/s.Kerala Transport Co., Calicut V. DCIT, Calicut

CO 43/COCH/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3561 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. NO. 262/COCH/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE DEPUTY C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE. [PAN:AADFK 0173H] (REVENUE - APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 43 / COCH / 2017 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NO.262/COCH/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE.. [PAN:AADFK 0173H] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) M.P. NO. 20 / COCH / 201 5 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NOS. 251 & 262/COCH/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE. [PAN:AADFK 0173H] VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) (REVENUE - RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 2 REVENUE BY SHRI A. DHANARAJ, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. DATE OF HEARING 14 /0 2 /2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 / 0 2 /2018 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OB JECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KOZHI KODE DATED 05/03/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION I S ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NOS. 25 1&262/COCH/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ONLY ONE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 262/COCH/2014 IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED. 3. ORIGINALLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL CAME UP FOR HE ARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS RIGHT IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 28,89,12,411/- MADE U/S. 40(A)( IA)? I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 3 3) THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY RULE 29D. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REACHING THE CONCLU SION THAT SUBMISSION OF FORM 15J IS NOT MANDATORY FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40( A)(IA) BY MERELY RELYING ON THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. VALIBHAI KHANBAI MANKAD 261 CTR (GUJ.) 538. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO OTHER PENAL ACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR NO N SUBMISSION OF FORM 15J. 6) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 4. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OFF THIS APPEAL ALONG WIT H APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 251/COCH/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014 BY OBSERV ING AS FOLLOWS: 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EI THER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TOTA L DISALLOWANCE WAS RS.61,32,54,820/- OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,71 ,97,689. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO RS.28,28,38,187/-. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM 15-J TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27 ,67,63,963/-. SECTION 40(A)(IA) PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDIT URE WHICH IS OTHER WISE ALLOWABLE IN CASE TAX WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVIIB WAS DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION IT WAS NOT PAID. T HEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS .28,28,38,187/- IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS LIABL E TO DEDUCT TAX. WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FORM 15-I/ 15-J FROM THE RECI PIENT SAYING THAT THEIR TAXABLE INCOME IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THEN THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT THE ASS ESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX. IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE W HOM FORM 15-I/15J WAS FILED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND INFORM THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE CLAIM MADE IN FORM 15-I OR 15-J IS NOT CORRECT. SIMPLY RECEIVING THE FORM 15-I AND 15-J AND KEEPING THE SAME ON FILE WITHOUT ACTING UPON, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BLAME THE ASSESSEE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TO THE E XTENT OF I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 4 RS.27,67,63,963/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM 15-I, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 13. NOW WHAT REMAINS IS ONLY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60 ,74,224/-. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM 15-I. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL NOW CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COLLECT FORM 15-I FOR LAPSE OF TIME. IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COLLECT FORM 15-I; IT IS FOR THE RECIPIENT OF THE AMOUNT TO FURNISH FORM 15-I TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS NOT TAXABLE IN THEIR HANDS. THEREFORE, FORM 15-I HAS T O BE FURNISHED BEFORE MAKING THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE NOW CANNOT COLLECT FORM 15-I FROM THE RECIPIENTS OF THE AMOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME THEY COULD NOT COLLECT FORM 15-I I S NOT JUSTIFIED. UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENTS ARE NOT TAXA BLE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. THEREFORE, FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD ATTRACT DISA LLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICT ED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,74,224/-. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. 5. ONCE AGAIN, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL, THE REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE HI GH COURT SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL V IDE JUDGMENT IN ITA NO. 78/2015 DATED 19/08/2015 BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 6. READING OF PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WAS RS.61,32,54,820/-. IT THEREAFTER STATES THAT OUT O F THIS AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,71,97,689/-. THIS ITSELF IS FACTUALLY ERR ONEOUS BECAUSE PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITYS ORDER STATES T HAT IN THE REPORT DATED 13.11.2013, WHAT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT, OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.61,32,54,820/-, ONLY AN AM OUNT OF RS.30,71,97,689/- IS SUSTAINABLE, AS THE ASSESSEE C OULD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT. THIS DOE S NOT MEAN THAT BY I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 5 MAKING SUCH OBSERVATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADMITTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIB UNAL. THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION, PROCEEDED TO HOL D THAT THE DISPUTE WAS ONLY WITH REGARD TO RS.28,28,38,187/-. EVEN IF THE LAST TWO FIGURES ARE ADDED, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THERE IS ERROR IN THE FIGURES SHOWN. SECONDLY, THE TRIBUNAL SAYS THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM 15-I TO THE EXTENT OF R S.27,67,63,963/- AND IT ON THAT BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE FINDING O F THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60,74,2 24/-. 7. HAVING SEEN THE FIGURES IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AND ALSO ON COMPARISON OF THE SAME WITH THE FIGURES AS AVAILABLE IN THE RE MAND REPORT EXTRACTED IN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITYS ORDER, WE ARE INCLI NED TO THINK THAT THERE ARE FACTUAL MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, REQUIRI NG RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. FO R THAT REASON, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN ITA.262/14 AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL WITH DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME AFRESH WITH N OTICE AND HEARING BOTH SIDES. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 28,89,12, 411/- BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, A READING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON AN EARLIER OCCAS ION SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT RS.61,32,54,820/- WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR ALSO DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 7.2 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH 1 5I FORMS IN RESPECT OF LORRY HIRE CHARGES PAID TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28,28,3 8,187/- OUT OF THE TOTAL OF RS.28,89,12,411/-, LEAVING A BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S.60,74,224/-. I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 6 FURTHER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURTS DECISION (SUPRA) WHICH SAYS THAT FILING OF FORM NO. 15J IS NOT A MA NDATORY CONDITION FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), I DELETE THE ADDITION EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.60,74,224/-. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED T O ADJUDICATE ONLY THIS ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT BY THE REVENUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,74,224/- VIDE PARA 7.2 OF HIS OR DER AND IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN ITS FINDING S AS ABOVE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN PARA 7.2 OF HIS ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.28 ,28,38,187/- OUT OF RS.28,89,12,411/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FURNISHED FORM 15-I. THE CIT(A) DELETED RS.28,28,38,187/- OUT OF RS.28,8 9,12,411/- AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.60,74,224/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE AD DITION OF RS.32,73,42,409/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 13/11/2013 STATED THAT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.61,32,54,820/-, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,71,97,689/- WAS SUSTAINABLE. AC CORDING TO THE LD. AR, PARA I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 7 7.2 OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE READ ALONG WITH PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER. HOWEVER, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AS THIS TRIBUNAL IS DUTY BOUND TO CONFINE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PARTIES BEF ORE IT. THE TRIBUNAL MUST CONFINE ITSELF TO THE QUESTION THAT REALLY ARISES I N THE APPEAL BEFORE IT AND CANNOT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF ITS JURISDICTION AND EX PRESS OPINION PREJUDICIAL TO THE PARTIES IN APPEAL BEFORE IT. THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL MUST BE CONFINED TO THE QUESTION RAISED BEFORE IT IN THE APPEAL AND IT MUST NOT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF ITS JURISDICTION. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF CIT(A), CALICUT DATED 29/04/2014 WHICH WAS PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 11/06/2014 STATING THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DEL ETED BY CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, IT WAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF CIT(A) ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE REFRAIN FROM EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON IT AS THAT O RDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE CONFINE TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. *HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DELETION OF RS.28,28,38,187/- BY THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FURNISHED FORM 15-I IN RESPECT OF THE LORRY HIRE CHARGES PAID TO THAT EXTENT. 8.1 NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTM ENT, IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF RS.27,67,63,963/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSE E HAS DULY FILED FORM 15-I. IN OUR OPINION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FILED FORM 15-I TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DEDUCTING TAX. THEREFO RE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.28,28,38,187/- OUT OF TO TAL ADDITION OF I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 8 RS.28,89,12,411/-. FURTHER, IT WAS CLARIFIED BY TH E PARTIES THAT THE ACTUAL FIGURE IS RS.28,28,38,187/- AND NOT RS.27,67,63,963/-. ACCOR DINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE DELETION OF RS.28,28,38,187/- MADE BY THE CIT(A). 8.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN C.O . NO. 43/COCH/2017 WITH A DELAY OF 803 DAYS. ORIGINALLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL IN ITA NO. 251/COCH/2014 ALONG WITH REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO . 262/COCH/2014. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OFF BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AN D THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE JUDGME NT IN ITA 78/2015 DATED 19/08/2015. WHEN THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL, NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AND HAS ALSO FILED CONDONATION PETITION SEEKING TO CONDONE THE DELAY FOR THE REASO N THAT IN VIEW OF THE REMAND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TRI BUNAL BY THE HIGH COURT, THE PETITIONER WAS ADVISED TO FILE CROSS OBJECTION AGAI NST THE RESTORED APPEAL. EVEN THOUGH MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS ALSO FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 DATED 07/04/2015 WHICH IS PENDING BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL, BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION, THE PETITIONER WAS ADVISED TO FIL E THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE RESTORED APPEAL WHICH WAS BELATED BY 80 3 DAYS. IN OUR OPINION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE BONA FIDE REASON FOR FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION BELATEDLY, THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED F OR A SIMPLE REASON THAT THE I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 9 ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WITH GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON HOW THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE THE CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL, WHEN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITSELF WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.251/COCH/2014 AND THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS TO B E NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OFF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 251/C OCH/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2014 BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 13. NOW WHAT REMAINS IS ONLY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6 0,74,224/-. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM 15-I. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL NOW CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COLLECT FORM 15-I FOR LAPSE OF TIME. IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COLLECT FORM 15-I; IT IS FOR THE RECIPIENT OF THE AMOUNT TO FURNISH FORM 15-I TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS NOT TAXABLE IN THEIR HANDS. THEREFORE, FORM 15-I HAS T O BE FURNISHED BEFORE MAKING THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE NOW CANNOT COLLECT FORM 15-I FROM THE RECIPIENTS OF THE AMOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME THEY COULD NOT COLLECT FORM 15-I I S NOT JUSTIFIED. UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENTS ARE NOT TAXA BLE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. THEREFORE, FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD ATTRACT DISA LLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICT ED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,74,224/-. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. 8.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ISSUE OF CONFIRMATI ON OF ADDITION OF RS.60,74,224/- BY THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY REACHED FI NALITY AND THAT FINALITY CANNOT BE DISTURBED AT THIS STAGE. 8.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. I.T.A. NO.262/C/2014, C.O. NO. 43/COCH/2017 & M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 10 8.5 M.P. NO.20/COCH/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT IS RELATING TO TWO APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 251 & 262/CO CH/2014. HENCE M.P. NO. 20/COCH/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHAN DRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIK ODE. 2. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKO DE. 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRA R) I.T.A.T. , COCHIN