ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, V. ITO, Sawai Madhopur

ITA 341/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1907 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: G C JAIN
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NO.341/JP/2016 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR G UPTA VS ITO, WARD- 3, SWAI MADHOPUR 1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 341/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA PROP. M/S. BATTU LAL RAHUVEER SARAN HINDAUN CITY CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 3, SWAI MADHOPUR (NOW: ITO KARAULI) LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AFPPG 2966 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.C. JAIN, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/10/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 18-10-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 RA ISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT AT ALL CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS THAT TOO SUPPORTED BY SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, ASSUMING WRONG FACTS MERELY REFERRING THE BARE PROVISION OF THE ACT, UNJ USTIFIABLY AND ILLEGALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,19,723/- MADE BY TH E ITO QUITE ARBITRARILY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THIS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL ADDIT ION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. (2) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S 234A AT RS . 3,478/- IT WAS MANDATORY AND ITA NO.341/JP/2016 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR G UPTA VS ITO, WARD- 3, SWAI MADHOPUR 2 CONSEQUENTIAL WHILE THIS IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE C ASE. HENCE, THIS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED AND BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS AND AO S FINDINGS. AS REGARDS NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF IT HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE TRANSPORT COMPANIES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AND ALSO SINCE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE TRUCK OWNERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T LIABLE FOR TDS. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT A CASE OF EXPENSES PAID OR PAYABLE BEFORE THE D UE DATE OR SO. IT IS A CASE WHERE PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS WERE MADE AND NO T AX WAS DEDUCTED WITHOUT ANY REASON. CLEARLY IN SUCH CASE THAT AT LEAST FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE PRIOR TO 1-10-2009, THE ASSESSEE GETS COVERED UNDER THE VIOLATION OF SECTION 194C SI NCE THE AMOUNTS EXCEEDED THE ADMISSIBLE LIMITS AND SINCE ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE ON BILLS RAISED BY TRANSPORT COMPANIES AND NOT INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OWNERS, THE PAYM ENTS WERE LIABLE FOR TDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO EXECUTE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT COME TO HIS RESCUE. IN THAT ITAT JAIPUR BENCH O RDER CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO, THE FACT WAS THAT THERE WERE 5 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL TRU CK OWNERS AND NOT TRANSPORT AGENCIES. HENCE, LOOKING TO THE OVERALL FACTS AS DISCUSSED, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,19,723/- IS CONFIRMED . 2.2 THE BENCH HAS HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO DISALL OWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,19,723/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT D EDUCT THE TAX U/S 194C OF THE ACT FROM THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRANSPORTERS WHICH IN FIRST APPEAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS A S MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT HE DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE BENCH DOE S NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WH ICH IS SUSTAINED. THUS GROUND NO. 1OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.341/JP/2016 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR G UPTA VS ITO, WARD- 3, SWAI MADHOPUR 3 3.1 IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST CHA RGE OF INTEREST AT RS. 3,478/- U/S 234A OF THE ACT. 3.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THE BENCH FINDS NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 /11/2 017 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 /11/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, HINDAUN CITY 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 3, SWAI MADHOPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 341/JP/2016 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR