Amudha Priya Ramesh, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Tambaram

ITA 2729/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90480 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: C RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2729/MDS/2014 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MRS. AMUDHA PRIYA RAMESH, NO.8, ANNA STREET, SHOLINGANALLUR, CHENNAI - 600 019. PAN : AGJPA 4046 M V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE, TAMBARAM, CHENNAI - 600 045. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SH.C. RAMESH KUMAR, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 14.05.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHENNA I, DATED 22.07.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO.2729/MDS/14 2. SHRI C. RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EARTH MOVING CONTRACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HIRED LORRIES AND PAID THE HIRE CHARGES. SINCE THE RECIPIENTS OF THE HIRE CHARGES FILED FORM 15J, ACCO RDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX A S REQUIRED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER RULE 29D(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO FILE FORM 15J ON OR BEFORE 30.06.2010 BUT, IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FORM S ONLY ON 08.02.2013. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HOWEVER, THE 15J FORMS WERE COLLECTED FROM THE RECIPIENTS BEFORE 30.06.2010. THE DELAY WAS ONLY IN FILING THE FORMS BEFORE THE C ONCERNED AUTHORITY AND NOT IN COLLECTING THE FORMS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FILED COPIES OF FORM 15J/15-I BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO FILE FORM 15J AND FORM 15-I ON OR BEFORE 30.06.2010. HOWEVER, THESE WERE FILED ONLY ON 8.02 .2013, BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2729/MDS/14 ASSESSEE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. ACCORDINGLY, TH E PAYMENT OF HIRE CHARGES WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE A LSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 29D(3) OF INCOM E-TAX RULES, 1962. THE RULE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE FORM 15-J ON OR BEFORE 30.06.2010. HOWEVER, ADMITTEDLY, THES E FORMS WERE FILED ONLY ON 08.02.2013. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THAT ALL THE 15-J AND 15-I FORMS WERE OBTAINED BEFORE 30.06.2010. TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FORM 15-J/15-I HAS T O BE FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE COLLECTION/PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THA T THE FORMS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE RECIPIENTS OF THE AMOUNT BEF ORE 30.06.2010. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT OBT AINING FORM15- J/15-I IS MANDATORY WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD. HOWEVE R, FILING BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY IS ONLY DISCRETIONARY. IF THE ASSESSEE FILES THE 15-J/15-I FORMS BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT , THEN THERE WILL BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE. THE ASSESSEE NOW FI LED COPIES OF 4 I.T.A. NO.2729/MDS/14 FORM 15-I BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, GENUINENE SS OF THE FORMS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT VERIFIED BY ANY O F THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE. THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND OTHERWISE OF 15- J/15-I FORMS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER D ECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE 15- J/15-I FORMS BEFORE 30.06.2010, THEN THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY DI SALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS , IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF RULE 29D(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !' ) ( . . . ) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 19 TH JUNE, 2015. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.2729/MDS/14 . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI 4. 0 81 /CIT-VII, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.