DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s The Jute Corporation Of India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2640/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6598 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Non-deduction of tax; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 194C; 250; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA {VIRTUAL COURT HEARING} (BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HONBLE VICE-PRESIDENT, KZ & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA....................................APPELLANT VS. M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD......................................................................RESPONDENT 15N, HUDCO BUILDING NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI KOLKATA 700 087 [PAN : AABCT 8820 B] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI BISWAJIT SYAM, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI T.P. SINGH, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 16 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 8 TH , 2021 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT, KZ :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), DT. 26/08/2019, PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.86,91,408/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING WHICH IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN RAW JUTE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 31/12/2010, THE TOTAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.74,65,76,153/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.86,91,408/- AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194I AND 194C OF THE ACT FROM THE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.10,60,90,375/- MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH REQUIRED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07/12/2012. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK OF RS.86,91,408/- AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER:- THAT THERE NO EXCLUSION OF STOCK, NO. 24 IS AN DISCLOSURE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS PER PROVISION OF PART II OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE REAL FACT MAY PLEASE BE DEALT IN THE TRADE ACCOUNT OF INTERNAL RAW JUTE- PRICE SUPPORT & INTERNAL RAW JUTE THE YEAR 2007- 08. THERE IS NO QUESTION ARISES OF NON ACCOUNTS. THE SAID 4248 BALES COMPRISES THE WEIGHT GAIN OF 3134 BALES UNDER I JUTE- COMMERCIAL AND WEIGHT LOSS OF 1245 BALES UNDER INTERNAL RAW JUTE CLAIM RECEIPT OF 2359 BALES (3134+2359 THAT, JCI PROCURES RAW JUTE FROM GROWERS AND PROCESS THE SAME INTO BALED FORM FOR SUPPLIES TO END USERS. THE INHERITED NORMAL NATURE IN JUTE FIBER CAUSES HANGING GAIN/LOSS WHILE MAKING BALED JUTE. FROM THE RAW JUTE. IT IS CUSTOMARY NOT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE GAIN IN NO AS THE SAID QUANTUM IS INCLUDED IN THE END STOCK, WHICH WERE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS SALES. QUESTION OF NO REFLECTION OF UNDERVALUATION ARISES AT ALL THE IN THE CASE. TRADE ACCOUNTS PUNTED OUT MAY PLEASE BE PERUSED ACCORDINGLY VALUE NORMAL GAIN IN ACCOUNT AS PER ACCEPTED NORMS WHILE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNTS, AS THE SAME IS ABSORBED, PLEASE NOTE. AS REGARD THE VALUATION OF STOCK, THE COMPANY OVER THE YEARS VALUATES THE STOCK ON CONSISTENT BASI AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE DEPARTMENT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ACCEPTED & HENCE A SUM OF RS.86,91,408/ DISALLOWE D AND IS ADDED BACK TO TH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.86,91,208/ INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK. 4. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AP FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THIS ISSUE:- THAT THE AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 86,91,408/ 4248 BALES OF RAW JUTE STOCKS, ASSU CLOSING STOCK TO ACCOUNTS . IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO DURING REGULAR ASSESSMENT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH EXCLUSION OF THE SAID 4248 BALES TO END STOCK AS THE STOCKS WERE TAKEN AS PER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AT TH E TIME OF ANNUAL CLOSING. RAW JUTE BY NATURE, IN PROCESS OF BALED FORM, CAUSES GAIN/(LOSS) OF WEIGHT DUE TO MOISTURE AND THE CORPORATION FOLLOWING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING OVER THE YEARS DULY ADJUST THE SAME IN ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. THE SAID STOCK OF 4248 BALES HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED AS EXCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS AND THE VALUE TAKEN ACCORDINGLY. THE EXCESS 4248 BALES AS WERE SHOWN IN SCHEDULE IN ITEM NO.24, TO DISCLOSE THE QUANTITATIVE DATA AS REQUIRED FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER VI SCH EDULE OF THE CO ACT 1956 AND HAD ALREADY IMPACTED ON VALUE AS THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK. ON SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE SAID QUANTITIES IN FOLLOWING YEAR THE INCOME GENERATED THEREFROM DULY ACCOUNTED IN FOLLOWING YEARS ALSO. A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AS THE ACCOUNTS AND ITS EFFECT FOR THE YEAR CLOSING STOCK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT; 2 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION THAT THERE NO EXCLUSION OF STOCK, AS POINTED OUT. THE DATA DISCLOSED IN THE SCHEDULE 20 ITEM NO. 24 IS AN DISCLOSURE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS PER PROVISION OF PART II OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE REAL FACT MAY PLEASE BE DEALT IN THE TRADE ACCOUNT OF INTERNAL PRICE SUPPORT & INTERNAL RAW JUTE - COMMERCIAL AT PAGE 54 & 55 OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR 08. THERE IS NO QUESTION ARISES OF NON - INCLUSION OF THE 4248 BALES OF JUTE IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE SAID 4248 BALES COMPRISES THE WEIGHT GAIN OF 3134 BALES UNDER I COMMERCIAL AND WEIGHT LOSS OF 1245 BALES UNDER INTERNAL RAW JUTE - PRICE SUPPORT AND OF 2359 BALES (3134+2359 - 1245) DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR PLEASE BE INFORMED PROCURES RAW JUTE FROM GROWERS AND PROCESS THE SAME INTO BALED FORM FOR SUPPLIES TO END USERS. THE INHERITED NORMAL NATURE IN JUTE FIBER CAUSES HANGING GAIN/LOSS WHILE MAKING BALED JUTE. FROM THE RAW JUTE. IT IS CUSTOMARY NOT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE GAIN IN NO AS THE SAID QUANTUM IS INCLUDED IN THE END STOCK, WHICH WERE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS SALES. QUESTION OF NO REFLECTION OF UNDERVALUATION ARISES AT ALL THE IN THE CASE. TRADE ACCOUNTS PUNTED OUT MAY PLEASE BE PERUSED ACCORDINGLY . UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED RULE IS NOT TO VALUE NORMAL GAIN IN ACCOUNT AS PER ACCEPTED NORMS WHILE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNTS, AS THE SAME IS ABSORBED, PLEASE NOTE. AS REGARD THE VALUATION OF STOCK, THE COMPANY OVER THE YEARS VALUATES THE STOCK ON CONSISTENT BASI S, THERE IS NO COMMENT OF THE CAG & & STATUTORY AUDITORS AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES GOVT. OF INDIA AND ALSO BY YOUR THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ACCEPTED & HENCE A SUM OF RS.86,91,408/ D AND IS ADDED BACK TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.86,91,208/ INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AP PEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THIS THAT THE AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 86,91,408/ - ,CONSIDERING VALUE OF 4248 BALES OF RAW JUTE STOCKS, ASSU MING THAT THE SAID 4248 BALES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN CLOSING STOCK TO ACCOUNTS . IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO DURING REGULAR ASSESSMENT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH EXCLUSION OF THE SAID 4248 BALES TO END STOCK AS THE STOCKS WERE TAKEN AS PER E TIME OF ANNUAL CLOSING. RAW JUTE BY NATURE, IN PROCESS OF BALED FORM, CAUSES GAIN/(LOSS) OF WEIGHT DUE TO MOISTURE AND THE CORPORATION FOLLOWING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING OVER THE YEARS DULY ADJUST THE SAME IN ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. THE OF 4248 BALES HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED AS EXCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS AND THE VALUE TAKEN ACCORDINGLY. THE EXCESS 4248 BALES AS WERE SHOWN IN SCHEDULE - 19 , NOTES TO ACCOUNTS IN ITEM NO.24, TO DISCLOSE THE QUANTITATIVE DATA AS REQUIRED FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER VI EDULE OF THE CO ACT 1956 AND HAD ALREADY IMPACTED ON VALUE AS THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK. ON SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE SAID QUANTITIES IN FOLLOWING YEAR THE INCOME GENERATED THEREFROM DULY ACCOUNTED IN FOLLOWING YEARS ALSO. A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AS PRESENTED HERE UNDER WILL CLEAR THE POSITION OF SAID SHOCKS TO THE ACCOUNTS AND ITS EFFECT FOR THE YEAR CLOSING STOCK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT; ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD AS POINTED OUT. THE DATA DISCLOSED IN THE SCHEDULE 20 ITEM NO. 24 IS AN DISCLOSURE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS PER PROVISION OF PART II OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE REAL FACT MAY PLEASE BE DEALT IN THE TRADE ACCOUNT OF INTERNAL COMMERCIAL AT PAGE 54 & 55 OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR INCLUSION OF THE 4248 BALES OF JUTE IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE SAID 4248 BALES COMPRISES THE WEIGHT GAIN OF 3134 BALES UNDER I NTERNAL RAW PRICE SUPPORT AND 1245) DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR PLEASE BE INFORMED PROCURES RAW JUTE FROM GROWERS AND PROCESS THE SAME INTO BALED FORM FOR SUPPLIES TO END USERS. THE INHERITED NORMAL NATURE IN JUTE FIBER CAUSES HANGING GAIN/LOSS WHILE MAKING BALED JUTE. FROM THE RAW JUTE. IT IS CUSTOMARY NOT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE GAIN IN NO RMAL SITUATION AS THE SAID QUANTUM IS INCLUDED IN THE END STOCK, WHICH WERE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS SALES. QUESTION OF NO REFLECTION OF UNDERVALUATION ARISES AT ALL THE IN THE CASE. TRADE . UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED RULE IS NOT TO VALUE NORMAL GAIN IN ACCOUNT AS PER ACCEPTED NORMS WHILE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNTS, AS THE SAME IS ABSORBED, PLEASE NOTE. AS REGARD THE VALUATION OF STOCK, THE COMPANY OVER THE YEARS S, THERE IS NO COMMENT OF THE CAG & & STATUTORY AUDITORS OF INDIA AND ALSO BY YOUR THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ACCEPTED & HENCE A SUM OF RS.86,91,408/ - IS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.86,91,208/ - TO THE TOTAL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CLOSING PEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THIS ,CONSIDERING VALUE OF MING THAT THE SAID 4248 BALES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN CLOSING STOCK TO ACCOUNTS . IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO DURING REGULAR ASSESSMENT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH EXCLUSION OF THE SAID 4248 BALES TO END STOCK AS THE STOCKS WERE TAKEN AS PER E TIME OF ANNUAL CLOSING. RAW JUTE BY NATURE, IN PROCESS OF BALED FORM, CAUSES GAIN/(LOSS) OF WEIGHT DUE TO MOISTURE AND THE CORPORATION FOLLOWING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING OVER THE YEARS DULY ADJUST THE SAME IN ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. THE OF 4248 BALES HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED AS EXCESS TO THE ACCOUNTS AND THE VALUE 19 , NOTES TO ACCOUNTS IN ITEM NO.24, TO DISCLOSE THE QUANTITATIVE DATA AS REQUIRED FOR DISCLOSURE UNDER VI EDULE OF THE CO ACT 1956 AND HAD ALREADY IMPACTED ON VALUE AS THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK. ON SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE SAID QUANTITIES IN FOLLOWING YEAR THE INCOME GENERATED PRESENTED HERE UNDER WILL CLEAR THE POSITION OF SAID SHOCKS TO PARTICULAR OPENING STOCK OF RAW JUTE ON 01.04.2007 ADD. PURCHASES DURING SUB TOTAL LESS SALES DURING THE YEAR LESS STOCK LOSS DUE TO DAMAGE/CLAIMS ACTUAL CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2008 CLOSING STOCK AS CREDITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SO, IT IS CLEARLY REFLECTED THAT STOCKS AS PER RECONCILIATION STANDS 579573 BALES WHEREAS ACTUALLY TAKEN TO ACCOUNTS FOR 583821 BALES AND HENCE THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES 583821- 579573) HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. 5. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTERS COMMENT AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE RECORD SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK REASONS:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SU APPEARS THAT THE ADDITION OF 4248 BALES OF JUTE VALUED AT RS.86,91,408/ APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE EXP GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO UNDERVALUATION OF STOCK AND THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UNIFORMLY OVER THE YEARS. THE A.O. HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT 4248 BALES IS INCLUDED IN STOCK AS ON 31.02.2008. THE ANY REASONS. THE SAME LINE OF REASONING WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 04.08.2014 IN WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN. ON PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT IN SUB-SECTI ON 3 OF SCHEDULE JUTE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER PROVIDING LOSS/GAIN DUE TO PROLONGED STORAGE AND HANDLING AS PER TRADE PRACTICE. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNIS STATEMENT WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. I FIND NO GROUNDS, NOT TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SHEET AND RELEVANT RECORDS, THE ADDITION OF RS.86,91,408/ AND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THAT, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), DULY SUPPORTED BY THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, SHOULD 3 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION QUANTITY (IN BALES) OPENING STOCK OF RAW JUTE ON 01.04.2007 4,07,691 PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR 7,66,076 11,73,767 SALES DURING THE YEAR 5,91,835 STOCK LOSS DUE TO DAMAGE/CLAIMS 2,359 ACTUAL CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2008 5,79,573 CLOSING STOCK AS CREDITED IN PROFIT & LOSS 5,83,821 REFLECTED THAT STOCKS AS PER RECONCILIATION STANDS 579573 BALES WHEREAS ACTUALLY TAKEN TO ACCOUNTS FOR 583821 BALES AND HENCE THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES 579573) HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO UNDER ASSESSMENT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTERS COMMENT AND AFTER TAKING INTO RECORD AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE ADDITION OF 4248 BALES OF JUTE VALUED AT RS.86,91,408/ - HAS BEEN MADE ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE EXP GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO UNDERVALUATION OF STOCK AND THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UNIFORMLY OVER THE YEARS. THE A.O. HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT 4248 BALES IS INCLUDED IN STOCK AS ON 31.02.2008. THE A.O. REJECTED THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE SAME LINE OF REASONING WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED HAD BEEN GIVEN. ON PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND ON 3 OF SCHEDULE - 19, THE AUDITOR HAD REMARKED THAT THE VALUE OF THE STOCK OF RAW JUTE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER PROVIDING LOSS/GAIN DUE TO PROLONGED STORAGE AND HANDLING AS PER TRADE PRACTICE. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNIS STATEMENT WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. I FIND NO GROUNDS, NOT TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND RELEVANT RECORDS, THE ADDITION OF RS.86,91,408/ - IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL SUCCEEDS WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D/R IS THAT, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), DULY SUPPORTED BY THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, SHOULD ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD QUANTITY (IN BALES) 4,07,691 7,66,076 11,73,767 5,91,835 5,79,573 5,83,821 REFLECTED THAT STOCKS AS PER RECONCILIATION STANDS 579573 BALES WHEREAS ACTUALLY TAKEN TO ACCOUNTS FOR 583821 BALES AND HENCE THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES 579573) HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO UNDER ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTERS COMMENT AND AFTER TAKING INTO AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CLOSING STOCK FOR THE FOLLOWING BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT HAS BEEN MADE ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE EXP LANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO UNDERVALUATION OF STOCK AND THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UNIFORMLY OVER THE YEARS. THE A.O. HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THAT A.O. REJECTED THE EXPLANATION WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE SAME LINE OF REASONING WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED HAD BEEN GIVEN. ON PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND 19, THE AUDITOR HAD REMARKED THAT THE VALUE OF THE STOCK OF RAW JUTE AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER PROVIDING LOSS/GAIN DUE TO PROLONGED STORAGE AND HANDLING AS PER TRADE PRACTICE. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNIS HED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF 4248 BALES HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. I FIND NO GROUNDS, NOT TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, THE AUDITED BALANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL SUCCEEDS WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE LIMITED CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D/R IS THAT, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), DULY SUPPORTED BY THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE/VERIFY THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ALONG WITH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING THE LATTERS COMMENTS AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DT. 04/08/20 SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK AS POINT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED BY THE AS OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD DULY CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PREPARED AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON SUC EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/02/2008 AS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D/R HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK. WE, THEREFORE FIND NO J USTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE AND 7. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ 40(A)(IA) TO RS.40,25,900/- . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GODOWN AND STORAGE CHARGES AND FREIGHT CHARGES: FOR CONDUCTING MSP OPERATION JCI HIRED GO DOWN TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN JUTE GROWING AREAS, SOME ARE AT VERY NOMINAL RATE WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TDS AND SOME STORAGE POINTS WERE HIRED SINCE LONG AND AS THEY ARE AT REMOTE AREA, THE RENT IS VERY LOW AND DOES THE PURVIEW OF TDS. HOWEVER IN CASE OF BIG STORAGE POINTS, NECESSARY TDS WERE MADE AND DEPOSITED ACCORDINGLY. AS REGARD DEDUCTION OF TDS RETURN, CORPORATION HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS PER GUIDELINES OF INCOME TAX ACT AND DEPOSITED THE AM AUTHORITY AND ALSO COMPILED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING TDS RETURN. IN BOTH CASE FOR 4 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE/VERIFY THE SAME. HOWEVE R, AS RIGHTLY POINT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ALONG WITH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING THE LATTERS COMMENTS AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DT. 04/08/20 SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK AS POINT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED BY THE AS OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PREPARED AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON SUC EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE UNDISCLOSED 4248 BALES OF RAW JUTE STOCK AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/02/2008 AS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D/R HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK. WE, THEREFORE FIND NO USTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ESSEE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GODOWN AND STORAGE CHARGES AND FREIGHT CHARGES: - FOR CONDUCTING MSP OPERATION JCI HIRED GO DOWN TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN JUTE GROWING AREAS, SOME ARE AT VERY NOMINAL RATE WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TDS AND SOME STORAGE POINTS WERE HIRED SINCE LONG AND AS THEY ARE AT REMOTE AREA, THE RENT IS VERY LOW AND DOES THE PURVIEW OF TDS. HOWEVER IN CASE OF BIG STORAGE POINTS, NECESSARY TDS WERE MADE AND DEPOSITED ACCORDINGLY. AS REGARD DEDUCTION OF TDS RETURN, CORPORATION HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AS PER GUIDELINES OF INCOME TAX ACT AND DEPOSITED THE AM OUNT SO DEDUCTED TO RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY AND ALSO COMPILED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING TDS RETURN. IN BOTH CASE FOR ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD R, AS RIGHTLY POINT ED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ALONG WITH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING THE LATTERS COMMENTS AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DT. 04/08/20 14 SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK AS POINT ED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING THE COURSE AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PREPARED AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON SUC H 4248 BALES OF RAW JUTE STOCK AS ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/02/2008 AS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D/R HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THIS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CLOSING STOCK. WE, THEREFORE FIND NO USTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE S APPEAL . IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOR CONDUCTING MSP OPERATION JCI HIRED GO DOWN TO DIFFERENT PLACES IN JUTE GROWING AREAS, SOME ARE AT VERY NOMINAL RATE WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TDS AND SOME STORAGE POINTS WERE NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF TDS. HOWEVER IN CASE OF BIG STORAGE POINTS, NECESSARY TDS WERE MADE AND DEPOSITED ACCORDINGLY. AS REGARD DEDUCTION OF TDS RETURN, CORPORATION HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT OUNT SO DEDUCTED TO RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY AND ALSO COMPILED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING TDS RETURN. IN BOTH CASE FOR PAYMENTS OF STORAGE CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, WHERE THE PROVISION APPLIES TDS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED ACCORDINGLY. IT IS PERTINENT TO M OUT OF RS.22,24,24,047/- & 8,28,66,338/ WHICH DOESN T ATTRACT TDS AS PER IT RULES AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS FAITHFULLY AND RIGIDLY FOLLOWED THE PROVISION OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT NO FURTHER DETAILS AND TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION ON THIS ISSUE. 9. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THAT AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE ADDITION OF RS 10,60,90,375/ PAYMENT OF STORAGE CHARGES AND FREIGHT. IN COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS EXPLA TDS WERE DULY DEDUCTED IN ALL APPLICABLE CASES AND PROPER COMPLIANCES WERE MADE IT WAS INFORMED TO AO THAT AS MOST OF THE STORAGES WERE HIRED IN YEAR'S BACK AT REMOTE LOCALITIES OF JUTE PRONE AREAS WITH VERY NOMINAL RATE OF MONTHLY RENT YEAR. HOWEVER TDS WERE DEDUCTED IN ALL ELIGIBLE CASES AS APPLICABLE UNDER THE PROVISION AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THIS REGARD TO AO DURING ASSESSMENT. AS REGARD PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, THE CORPORATION HAD DED COMPLIANCES WERE MADE AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO DURING ASSESSMENT. AS REFERRED TO TAR IN POINT NO. 27(A) THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL THERE WAS NO OMISSION TO DEDUCT TDS IN APPLICABLE CASES. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ISSUE WE ARE SUBMITTING ONE TDS STATEMENT ALONG WITH DATE OF DEDUCTION AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME FROM THE AUDITORS IN A CE RTIFICATE WHO HAVE ISSUED THE TAR FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO A DEPOSIT STATEMENT AS GENERATED FROM NSDL TO AUTHENTICATE ALL PAYMENTS OF TDS TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS ACCORDINGLY. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD DISALLOWED RS.10,60,90,374/ THE ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT..CERTIFICATE IN WHICH IT WAS CERTIFIED THAT THE VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S AND U/S 194I RS.15,92,838/ APPELLANT WHO HAD ALSO SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 10. THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS CONS TITUTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE FORWARDED BY OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. AFTER VERIFYING REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING HIS REMARKS AS UNDER:- 5 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION PAYMENTS OF STORAGE CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, WHERE THE PROVISION APPLIES TDS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED ACCORDINGLY. IT IS PERTINENT TO M ENTION HERE THAT, ALL THE PAYMENTS AS POINTED & 8,28,66,338/ - ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TDS, AS THERE ARE SOME PAYMENTS T ATTRACT TDS AS PER IT RULES AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS FAITHFULLY PROVISION OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT NO FURTHER DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE ADDITION OF RS 10,60,90,375/ - FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT OF STORAGE CHARGES AND FREIGHT. IN COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS EXPLA INED TO THE AO THAT TDS WERE DULY DEDUCTED IN ALL APPLICABLE CASES AND PROPER COMPLIANCES WERE MADE IT WAS INFORMED TO AO THAT AS MOST OF THE STORAGES WERE HIRED IN YEAR'S BACK AT REMOTE LOCALITIES OF JUTE PRONE AREAS WITH VERY NOMINAL RATE OF MONTHLY RENT THEY DID NOT QUALIFIED FOR TDS FOR THE YEAR. HOWEVER TDS WERE DEDUCTED IN ALL ELIGIBLE CASES AS APPLICABLE UNDER THE PROVISION AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THIS REGARD TO AO DURING ASSESSMENT. AS REGARD PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, THE CORPORATION HAD DED UCTED 1 T AT SOURCE IN APPLICABLE CASES AND NECESSARY COMPLIANCES WERE MADE AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO DURING ASSESSMENT. AS REFERRED TO TAR IN POINT NO. 27(A) THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCORDINGLY FOR THE YEAR. SO IT CLARIFIES THAT THERE WAS NO OMISSION TO DEDUCT TDS IN APPLICABLE CASES. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ISSUE WE ARE SUBMITTING ONE TDS STATEMENT ALONG WITH DATE OF DEDUCTION AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME FROM THE RTIFICATE WHO HAVE ISSUED THE TAR FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO A DEPOSIT STATEMENT AS GENERATED FROM NSDL TO AUTHENTICATE ALL PAYMENTS OF TDS TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD DISALLOWED RS.10,60,90,374/ - ON THE GROUNDS THE ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT..CERTIFICATE IN WHICH IT WAS CERTIFIED THAT THE VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C AMOUNTING TO RS.10,15,269/ AND U/S 194I RS.15,92,838/ - . A REMAND WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WHO HAD ALSO SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ON THIS ISSUE WERE ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TITUTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, A REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING HIS ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD PAYMENTS OF STORAGE CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, WHERE THE PROVISION APPLIES TDS HAS ENTION HERE THAT, ALL THE PAYMENTS AS POINTED ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TDS, AS THERE ARE SOME PAYMENTS T ATTRACT TDS AS PER IT RULES AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS FAITHFULLY THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) OF DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE CASE ON THIS ISSUE:- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON INED TO THE AO THAT TDS WERE DULY DEDUCTED IN ALL APPLICABLE CASES AND PROPER COMPLIANCES WERE MADE IT WAS INFORMED TO AO THAT AS MOST OF THE STORAGES WERE HIRED IN YEAR'S BACK AT REMOTE LOCALITIES OF THEY DID NOT QUALIFIED FOR TDS FOR THE YEAR. HOWEVER TDS WERE DEDUCTED IN ALL ELIGIBLE CASES AS APPLICABLE UNDER THE PROVISION AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THIS REGARD TO AO DURING ASSESSMENT. AS REGARD PAYMENT UCTED 1 T AT SOURCE IN APPLICABLE CASES AND NECESSARY AS REFERRED TO TAR IN POINT NO. 27(A) THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT GOVERNMENT ACCORDINGLY FOR THE YEAR. SO IT CLARIFIES THAT THERE WAS NO OMISSION TO DEDUCT TDS IN APPLICABLE CASES. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ISSUE WE ARE SUBMITTING ONE TDS STATEMENT ALONG WITH DATE OF DEDUCTION AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME FROM THE RTIFICATE WHO HAVE ISSUED THE TAR FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO A DEPOSIT STATEMENT AS GENERATED FROM NSDL TO AUTHENTICATE ALL PAYMENTS OF TDS TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T RECORD. ON THE GROUNDS PROVISION OF THE ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT..CERTIFICATE IN WHICH IT WAS CERTIFIED THAT THE VERIFICATION 194C AMOUNTING TO RS.10,15,269/ - . A REMAND WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS SUBMISSION WERE ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, A REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING HIS GODOWN RENT & STORAGE CHARGES NAME OF THE RO GODOWN RENT & STORAGE CHARGES SHEORAPHULLY 886379 BARASAT 998838 KRISHNAGAR 1454298 BETHUADAHARI 607731 BERHAMPORE 1102981 MALDA 1801608 SILIGURI 837817 ' COOCHBEHAR 947344 DHUBRI 529597 PUWAHATI 965293 NAGAON 2438792 PURNEA 1220981 SAHARSA 622236 6 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION GODOWN RENT & STORAGE CHARGES TDS CLAIMED TO HAVE DEDUCTED WHETHER DETAILS OF PAYMENT VIS - A-VIS TDS DEDUCTION FILED? REMARKS NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE THRESHOLD NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE THRESHOLD NIL NO NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. NIL PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO LANDLORD WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION ; NIL PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO LANDLORD WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. 142161 PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO LANDL ORD WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO ! INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE THRESHOLD 22535 YES J NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 122516 MADE TO RMC, TUFANGANJ AND RS. 120750 TO PRAKASH CH. PATNI, THOUGH THESE PAYMENTS WERE LIABLE TO TDS DEDUCTION. NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT J MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE THRESHOLD NIL YES NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 687135 AND RS. 72\ 230 MADE TO ASWC, THOUGH THESE PAYMENTS WERE LIABLE TO TDS 188030 YES NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 356131 MADE TO INDUSTRIAL PAPER ASSAM LTD, THOUG H THIS PAYMENT WAS LIABLE TO TDS 96400 YES NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 356131 MADE TO INDUSTRIAL PAPER ASSAM LTD. THOUG H THIS PAYMENT WAS LIABLE TO TDS NIL PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO LANDLORD WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE THE SUBMISSION. DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO ! INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 122516 MADE TO RMC, TUFANGANJ AND RS. 120750 TO PRAKASH CH. PATNI, THOUGH THESE PAYMENTS WERE LIABLE TO TDS IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE MADE TO LANDLORD IS BELOW THE NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 230 MADE TO ASWC, THOUGH THESE PAYMENTS WERE LIABLE TO TDS NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 356131 MADE TO INDUSTRIAL PAPER ASSAM H THIS PAYMENT WAS LIABLE TO NO TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS 356131 MADE TO INDUSTRIAL PAPER ASSAM H THIS PAYMENT WAS LIABLE TO AS NO LANDLORD WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE CUTTACK 3 10559 [AGARTALA 118260 HEAD OFFICE 6751469 NAME OF THE RO FREIGHT CHARGES TDS CLAIMED TO HAVE SHEORAPHULLY 1232708 24960 BARASAT 1965949 36645 BETHUADAHARI 1897759 52473 BERHAMPORE 4640410 97138 MALDA 5847307.5 115020 SILIGURI 3588440 46097 COOCHBEHAR 3076677 65185 DHUBRI 3135746 6921 GUWAHATI 4754987 105179 NAGAON 470861 4423 PURNEA 3331538 52177 7 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO L ANDLORD IS BELOW THE THRESHOLD UNIT NIL YES IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAI MADE TO LANDLORD BELOW THE THRESHOLD 1143712 NO NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE CAN B E DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION FREIGHT CHARGES TDS CLAIMED TO HAVE WHETHER TDS DETAILS FILED? REMARKS 24960 YES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE FRIEGHT CHARGES. 36645 YES IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON RS. 12406 AND 24772 (PAID TO M/S. SARKAR ENTERPRISE). IN REST OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS AT THE SPECIFIED RATE AND HENCE, THERE 52473 PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. 97138 PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION 115020 PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. 46097 VES THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS. 1531332 AT STIPULATED RATE. LEDGER OF M/S. SAROGI ROADWAYS COULD HAVE THROWN SOME LIGHT ON ACTUAL NON DEDUCTION/SHORT DEDUCTION. 65185 YES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE FRIEGHT CHARGES. 6921 - 1 YES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE FRIEGHT CHARGES. 105179 YES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE FRIEGHT CHARGES. 4423 YES THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS. 93497 MADE TO PRANIAL KAKATI 52177 YES THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS 363952 AND ON RS. 503347 MADE TO SARAOGI GOODS CARRYING COM. AT ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE ANDLORD IS BELOW THE IT APPEARS FROM THE DETAI LS THAT THE PAYMENT BELOW THE THRESHOLD LIMIT NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE CAN E DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON RS. 12406 AND 24772 (PAID TO M/S. SARKAR ENTERPRISE). IN REST OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS AT THE SPECIFIED RATE AND HENCE, THERE PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. AS NO PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION PARTYWISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS. 1531332 AT STIPULATED RATE. ROADWAYS COULD HAVE THROWN SOME LIGHT ON ACTUAL NON - DEDUCTION/SHORT DEDUCTION. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS. 93497 MADE TO PRANIAL THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS 363952 AND ON RS. 503347 MADE TO SARAOGI GOODS CARRYING COM. AT SAHARSA 2890764 60978 CUTTACK 80188 AGARTALA 21131 1053 HEAD OFFICE 45901862.5 284730 FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN SOME CASES THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO DEDUCT T DS AND IN SOME CASES IT HAD SHORT DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, NO VERIFICATION COULD BE MADE. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C AND 1941 OF THE I DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,62,007/- ON FREIGHT CHARGES U/S 194C AND RS.23,63,893/ ADDITION OF RS.10,60,90,375/ PARTLY SUCCEEDS AND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMARKS MADE BY THE ASSE THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN SOME CASES INVOLVING PENDING AMOUNT OF RS.16,62,007/ AND RS.23,63,893/- ON ACCOUNT OF GODOWN AND STORAGE CHARGES. HE ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO RS.40,25,900/ 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE DURING THE C PROCEEDINGS TO POINT OUT THE DUE COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND 194I WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMARILY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS AND WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETA SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE, WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WERE DULY FORWARDED TO THE LD 8 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION 60978 PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO PARTYWISE - DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO NFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION PARTIAL DETAILS AS NO PARTY - WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION 1053 YES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE FREIGHT CHARGES 284730 NO NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN SOME CASES THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO DS AND IN SOME CASES IT HAD SHORT - DEDUCTED TAX ON PAYMENTS. IN SOME CASES, NO DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, NO VERIFICATION COULD BE MADE. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C AND 1941 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, IN SOME CASES, THERE HAD BEEN NO DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. ON FREIGHT CHARGES U/S 194C AND RS.23,63,893/ - U/S 1941. THEREFORE, THE RS.10,60,90,375/ - IS RESTRICTED TO RS.40,25,900/- . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PARTLY SUCCEEDS AND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. ' ON PERUSAL OF THE REMARKS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C AND 194I EXCEPT INVOLVING PENDING AMOUNT OF RS.16,62,007/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES ON ACCOUNT OF GODOWN AND STORAGE CHARGES. HE ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S RS.40,25,900/ -. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO POINT OUT THE DUE COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND 194I WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMARILY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS AND WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETA ILS AND DOCUMENTS TO THE SAME. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE, WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WERE DULY FORWARDED TO THE LD ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO NFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION WISE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS AT STIPULATED RATE WHILE PAYING THE NO DETAILS FILED AND HENCE NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE SUBMISSION FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN SOME CASES THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO DEDUCTED TAX ON PAYMENTS. IN SOME CASES, NO ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, IN SOME CASES, THERE HAD BEEN NO DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. U/S 1941. THEREFORE, THE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL SSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C AND 194I EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES ON ACCOUNT OF GODOWN AND STORAGE CHARGES. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESE, THE OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO POINT OUT THE DUE COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND 194I WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMARILY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS AND WITHOUT ILS AND DOCUMENTS TO THESE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE, WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WERE DULY FORWARDED TO THE LD . CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LATTER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON SUCH VERIFICATION, A REMAND REPORT WAS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY GIVING REMARKS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTY TO WHOM THE RELEVANT PAYMENTS WERE MADE. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID REMARKS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON TH DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ONLY FROM THE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 40,25,900/ OF FREIGHT AND GODOWN/STORAGE CHARGES AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. D/R ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THIS POSIT FROM THE REMARKS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO RS.40,25,900/ GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08.09.2021 {SC SPS} 9 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LATTER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON A REMAND REPORT WAS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY HIM TO THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING REMARKS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTY TO WHOM THE RELEVANT PAYMENTS WERE MADE. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID REMARKS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FROM THE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 40,25,900/ OF FREIGHT AND GODOWN/STORAGE CHARGES AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. D/R ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THIS POSIT ION WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE REMARKS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,60,90,375/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO RS.40,25,900/ - AND UPHOLDING THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. [ P.M. JAGTAP JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LATTER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON HIM TO THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING REMARKS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTY TO WHOM THE RELEVANT PAYMENTS WERE MADE. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID REMARKS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FROM THE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 40,25,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT AND GODOWN/STORAGE CHARGES AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING ION WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE REMARKS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S AND UPHOLDING THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE, WE DISMISS SD/- P.M. JAGTAP ] VICE -PRESIDENT COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF 15N, HUDCO BUILDING NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI KOLKATA 700 087 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 10 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2640/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /DDO ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES