, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA [ () , ,, , , ! . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , , , , %& ] ]] ] [BEFORE SRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM & SRI C. D. RA O, AM] !( / I.T.A NO. 1598/(KOL) OF 2010 )* +,/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT,CIRCLE-2, - - BANDANA MAIKAP MIDNAPORE -VERSUS- PASCHIM MEDINIPUR. (PAN : AGOPM 7954 B) (./ / APPELLANT ) ( 01./ /RESPONDENT) !( / I.T.A NO. 1606/(KOL) OF 2010 )* +,/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 BANDANA MAIKAP ADDITIONAL CIT,R-2, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR. MIDNAPORE (PAN : AGOPM 7954 B) (./ / APPELLANT ) ( 01./ /RESPONDENT) ./ 2 3 %/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M.S.MEENA 01./ 2 3 %/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOWDHURY 4 2 $& /DATE OF HEARING : 29.12.2011. 5+ 2 $& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2011. %6 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . ) )) ), , , , %& PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE OTHER FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XXXVII, KOLKATA DATED 30.04.2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE MAIN ISSUE IS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONS MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. 2 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN A VIEW THAT IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUALS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C(1) IS APP LICABLE W.E.F. 01.06.2007. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS 2007-08 THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY APPLYIN G SECTION 194C(1) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, HE RE QUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER PARTI ALLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN A V IEW THAT IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUALS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C(1) IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. 0 1.06.2007. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS 2007-08 WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS REQUIRED U/S 194C OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. 7. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS REGARDING LEVYING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE IT ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN EFFECT . SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE IT ACT ARE MANDATORY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST DUE U/S 234B AND 234C O F THE IT ACT, IF ANY. 3 3 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.12.2011. SD/- SD/- , , , , ) ) ) ) N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , , , , %& %& %& %& , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ($& $& $& $&) )) ) DATE: 29.12.2011. %6 2 0)) 7%+8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. BANDANA MAIKAP, VILL. BHUA, P.O.FATECHAK, P.S.SABAN G, DIST.PASCHIM MEDNIPUR. 2 THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, MIDNAPORE. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 1 0)/ TRUE COPY, %6/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)