SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, Jaipur V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

ITA 285/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5147 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. M/S. MAHAVEER AND COMPANY, NAZAR BAGH ROAD, BADA KUWA, TONK. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TONK, TONK. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFEPJ 4688 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/10/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2017 OF LD. CIT (A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PRO VIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. APPELLANT PRAYS ORDER S O PASSED IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND DESERVES TO B E QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COM MISSION OF RS. 39,62,472/- MADE BY LD. AO ARBITRARILY. APPELLANT P RAYS DISALLOWANCE SO CONFIRMED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 501 0/- MADE BY LD. AO 2 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. ALLEGING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME WH EN THE SAME WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT PRAYS ADD ITION SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELE TE, AMEND OR ABANDON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 3 AND TH E SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WHOLESALE DEAL ER OF M/S. SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD. AS WELL AS M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF MOBILE ACCESSORIES, SIM CARD, RECHARGE COUPONS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COMMISSION RECEIPT OF RS. 68,69,968/- FROM M/S. SIS TEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD. WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID COMMISSION TO THE SUB-DEALERS/RETAILERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 39,62,471/- WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER, SINCE NOBODY HAS 3 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. ATTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HA S POINTED OUT THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 IN ITA NO. 238/ JP/2016 AND, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL IS SUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 238/JP/2016 DATED 19.07.2018 IN PARA 5 AS U NDER :- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S CHOCOPACK ENTERPRIS ES VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (IA) FOR WANT OF DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194H IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISS ION PAID TO THE RETAILER/SUB-DEALER. THE SAID DECISION WAS SUBSEQUE NTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS . ITO (SUPRA) AND HELD IN PARA 4 AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD. TO SH OW THAT THE 4 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS DIRECTLY PAID BY THE SAID C OMPANY TO THE RETAILERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CARRIED OUT T HE NECESSARY ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR COMPLETION OF R ECORD BEING THE DEALER AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE PASSING THR OUGH THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS DIRECTLY PAID BY THE COMPANY AN D FURTHER THE QUANTUM AND PERCENTAGE OF THE SAID COMMISSION/D ISCOUNT WAS ALSO IN THE FULL CONTROL OF THE COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE H AS PASSED THE CONTRA ENTRY OF THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD NOT BRING THE SAID TRANSACTION IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMISSION PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H. TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHOCOPACK ENT ERPRISES VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PA RA 9 AS UNDER :- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE S FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP OF IDEA RECHARGE CARDS. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN CASE OF THEAS SESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF RECHARGE COUPONS AND NOT T HE SALE OF SIM CARDS. THEREFORE TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUE OF SALE OF SIM CARDS BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER IT IS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATI AIRTEL L TD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE SERVICE PROVID ER HAD NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS AND ACCORDINGLY WHEN TH E SERVICE PROVIDER HAS IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DEDU CT TAX, THE DISTRIBUTOR WOULD ALSO NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS. HOWEVER, THE SAID DECISION IS ONLY ON THE ISSU E OF SALE SIM CARDS AND THEREFORE, WILL NOT APPLICABLE I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA 282 ITR 273 AS ALSO OBSERVED IN PARAS 85 AND 86 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 85. IN THAT CASE ESCOTAL WAS ADMITTEDLY ENGAGED IN SELLING CELLULAR TELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS, SIM CARDS A ND OTHER ACCESSORIES AND WAS ALSO PAYING CENTRAL SALES TAX AND SALES TAX UNDER THE KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX AC T, 1963, AS APPLICABLE. THE QUESTION WAS ONE OF THE VALUATION OF THESE GOODS. THE STATE SALES TAX AUTHO RITIES 5 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. HAD SOUGHT TO INCLUDE THE ACTIVATION CHARGES IN THE COST OF THE SIM CARD. IT IS CONTENDED BY ESCOTAL THAT TH E ACTIVATION WAS PART OF THE SERVICE ON WHICH SERVICE TAX WAS BEING PAID AND COULD NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE SALE. THE KERALA HIGH COURT ALSO DEA LT WITH THE CASE OF BPL, A SERVICE PROVIDER. ACCORDING TO B PL, IT DID NOT SELL CELLULAR TELEPHONES. AS FAR AS SIM CAR DS WERE CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD NO SALE V ALUE. A SIM CARD MERELY REPRESENTED A MEANS OF THE ACCESS AND IDENTIFIED THE SUBSCRIBERS. THIS WAS PART OF TH E SERVICE OF A TELEPHONE CONNECTION. THE COURT REJECT ED THIS SUBMISSION FINDING THAT THE SIM CARD WAS GOODS WI THIN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD IN THE STATE SALES TAX A CT. 86. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS COURT TO OPINE FINA LLY ON THE ISSUE. WHAT A SIM CARD REPRESENTS IS ULTIMATELY A QUESTION OF FACT AS HAS BEEN CORRECTLY SUBMITTED BY THE STATES. IN DETERMINING THE ISSUE, HOWEVER THE ASSES SING AUTHORITIES WILL HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES : IF THE SIM CARD IS NOT SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE TO THE SUBSCRIBERS BUT IS MERELY PART OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDERS, THEN A SIM CARD CANNOT BE CHARGED SEPARATELY TO SALES TAX. IT WOULD DEPEND ULTIMATELY UPON THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES . IF THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE SIM CARD WOULD BE A SEPAR ATE OBJECT OF SALE, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES TO LEVY SALES TAX THEREON. THERE IS INS UFFICIENT MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH WE CAN REACH A DECIS ION. HOWEVER, WE EMPHASISE THAT IF THE SALE OF A SIM CAR D IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE SERVICE BEING PROVIDED AND ONLY FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSCRIBERS, THEIR CREDIT AND OTHER DETAILS, IT WOULD NOT BE ASSESSABLE TO SA LES TAX. IN OUR OPINION THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FIN ALLY DETERMINED THE ISSUE. IN ANY EVENT, THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN INCLUDING THE COST OF THE SERVICE IN THE VALUE O F THE SIM CARD BY RELYING ON THE ASPECTS DOCTRINE. THAT DOCTR INE MERELY DEALS WITH LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE. AS HAS BE EN SUCCINCTLY STATED IN FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAU RANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA [1989] 3 SCC 634 SUBJECTS WHICH IN ONE ASPECT AND FOR ONE PURPOSE F ALL WITHIN THE POWER OF A PARTICULAR LEGISLATURE MAY IN 6 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. ANOTHER ASPECT AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE FALL WITHIN ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE POWER. THEY MIGHT BE OVERLAPPIN G ; BUT THE OVERLAPPING MUST BE IN LAW. THE SAME TRANSA CTION MAY INVOLVE TWO OR MORE TAXABLE EVENTS IN ITS DIFFE RENT ASPECTS. BUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS OVERLAPPING DOE S NOT DETRACT FROM THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE ASPECTS. N O ONE DENIES THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE STATES TO LEVY SALES TAX ON SALES PROVIDED THAT THE NECESSARY CONCOMITANTS OF A SALE ARE PRESENT IN THE TRANSACTI ON AND THE SALE IS DISTINCTLY DISCERNIBLE IN THE TRANSACTI ON. THEREFORE, AS THE ISSUE OF SALE OF SIM CARDS IS CON CERNED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE SAL E OF SIM CARDS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE SERVICE BEING PROVID ED AND ONLY FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSCRIBERS THEIR CREDIT AND OTHER DETAILS IT WOULD NOT BE ASSESSABLE TO SALE TAX. AS REGARDS THE SALE OF RECHARGE COUPONS IT IS CLEARLY A TRANSACTIO N OF SALE OF GOODS AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE TELEPHONE IS NOTHING BUT A SERVICE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE SERVIC E IS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS THE SERVICE PROVIDER AND AS SESSEE IS ONLY A DISTRIBUTOR AND INTERMEDIATETORY, THEREFORE, THE TAX LIABILITY FOR PAYING THE COMMISSION, IF ANY, IS ATT RACTED U/S 194H ONLY AGAINST THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE COMMISSION. IN CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PAYING ANY COMM ISSION TO THE RETAILERS BUT THIS COMMISSION OR SO CALLED DISC OUNT IS ALLOWED AND PAID BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A N INTERMEDIATETORY AND ONLY RECORDING THIS TRANSACTIO N IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETENESS. H ENCE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR RESPONSIBLE N OR ACTUALLY PAYING ANY COMMISSION TO THE RETAILER ON SALE OF RE CHARGE COUPONS TO THE RETAILERS THEN THE OBLIGATION FOR DE DUCT TAX U/S 194 H IS ATTRACTED ONLY AGAINST THE SERVICE PROVIDE R AND NOT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ONLY A DISTRIBUTOR AND RECEIVING ITS SHARE OF THE COMMISSION/ MARGINS PROVIDED BY THE SE RVICE PROVIDER. THE DETERMINATION OF SALE PRICE OF RECHAR GE COUPONS IS IN THE SOLE DOMAIN OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER AND THE ASSESSEE IS NO ROLE IN DETERMINING THE RETAIL PRICE AT WHICH TH E RETAILER IS SELLING THE RECHARGE COUPONS TO THE CUSTOMER OR END USER OF THE SERVICE. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEES ROLE IS ONLY AN INTERMEDIATETOR Y AND PASSING THE SERVICES FROM ONE HAND TO THE OTHER HAN D THEN 7 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING AN AMOUNT OF COMMISSION/DISCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR COM PLETENESS OF ACCOUNTS AND TRANSACTIONS WILL NOT IMPUTE ANY LI ABILITY OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE ALSO ON THE POINT WHERE THE SERVICE PROVIDER IS ALLOWING OR PAYING THE COMMISSION TO THE DISTRIBUTORS OR RETAIL ERS AND SALE OF SIM CARDS AS WELL AS RECHARGE COUPONS, THEREFORE, E VEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENTS IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE BENEFI T ALLOWED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAIL ERS IS COMMISSION IT IS SERVICE PROVIDER WHO IS RESPONSIBL E FOR PAYING THE SAID COMMISSION AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 194H ARE NOT ATTRACTED AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR. ACC ORDINGLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY IN DECIDING THE QUANTUM OF ALLEGED COMMISSION/DISCOUNT AS WELL AS D ETERMINING THE RETAIL PRICE AT WHICH THE RECHARGE COUPONS IS S OLD TO THE CUSTOMER THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H CANNOT BE APPLIED ON THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 40 (A)(IA) IS DELETED. THUS THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM L TD. VS. UNION OF INDIA, 282 ITR 273 (SC). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ISSUE IN CASE OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. UOI (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASES WHICH ARE RELIED UPON BY TH E LD. CIT (A) WAS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE OPERATING COMPANIES WHETHER IT WAS COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT ALL OWED BY THE CELLULAR/MOBILE OPERATORS. THEREFORE, EVEN OTHE RWISE THE DECISIONS ON THOSE CASES ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABL E IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRIBUTOR AND AN INTER- MEDIATORY BETWEEN THE CELLULAR/MOBILE OPERATOR AND THE RETAILERS. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN INTERMEDIATORY BE TWEEN THE CELLULAR/MOBILE OPERATOR AND RETAILER AND THE PAYME NT OF COMMISSION WAS DIRECTLY MADE BY THE CELLULAR/MOBILE OPERATOR C OMPANIES TO THE 8 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. RETAILER/SUB-DEALER AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS THEN, TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT ANY TDS ON THE SAID AMOUNT DIREC TLY PAID BY THE COMPANY AND ONLY THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WERE CARRIE D OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES ARE IDENTICAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE EARLI ER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/10/20 18. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/10/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD TONK. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 285/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 9 ITA NO. 285/JP/2018 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, TONK.