Manoj Kumar, Ranchi V. ITO, Ranchi

ITA 12/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0015 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BINAY KUMAR JALAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.12/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 MANOJ KUMAR, PROP. MATHURA PRASAD, C/O. SRI VINAY KUMAR JALAN, 48, CART SARAI ROAD, UPER BAZAR, RANCHI. VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), RA N CHI PAN/GIR NO. ACEPB 6744 L (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BINAY KUMAR JALAN , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY PAL , DR DATE OF HEARING : 5/12/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5/12/ 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - RANCHI , DATED 28.9.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. GROUND NO.1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY ME. 3. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.12/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7303/ - INSPTIE OF THE FACT THAT NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND TO LOCATE THE EXPENSES TO BE BOGUS. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND HAS MADE ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL APPENDED TO FORM NO.36 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5 . GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER: FOR THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT RIG HT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,34,397/ - UNDER SECTION 40(A)( IA) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS AND TDS WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED THEN THE FULL TRUCK LOADS WERE TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE C ONSIGNEES. THE CIT(A) APPLIED THE LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE TRADE WHICH WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE TRADE. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF RS.8,50,432/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FREIGHT PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO ONE TRANSPORTER EXCEEDING RS.50,000/ - AND AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED FROM THIS PAYMENT. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR FREIGHT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,34,397/ - . 7. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 8. BEFORE ME LD A.R. ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VICTOR SHIPPING 3 ITA NO.12/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 SERVICES (P) LTD., (2013) 357 ITR 642(ALL ) THAT FOR DISALLOWING EXPENSES FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAYABLE AND NOT IT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE END OF THE YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 2.7.2014 IN CC NO.(S) 8068/2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS OF RS.3,34,397/ - TO TRUCK DRIVERS AND NO AMOUNT WAS OUTSTANDING AND PAYAB LE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VICTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD (SUPRA), NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) WAS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THERE ARE CONTRARY DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE AND NONE OF WHICH IS HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEN THE DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., 88 ITR 1 92 (SC). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ITAT RANCHI VIDE ORDER DATED 11.3.2016 IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW PUNJAB MOTOR TRANSPORT VS ITO (ITA NO.308/RAN/2004 AND ITA NO.309/RAN/20104 FOR A.Y.2010 - 2011 ON SIMILAR FACTS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(IA). 9. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO AMOUNTING OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VICTOR 4 ITA NO.12/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD(SUPRA) DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,34,397/ - MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 5/12/2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - (N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI ; DATED 5 /12 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RAN CHI 1. THE APPELLANT : MANOJ KUMAR, PROP. MATHURA PRASAD, C/O. SRI VINAY KUMAR JALAN, 48, CART SARAI ROAD, UPER BAZAR, RANCHI. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 2(2), RANCHI 3. THE CIT(A) , RANCHI 4. CIT , RANCHI 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//