ITO,Ward -56(3), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Anurag Kr. Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 425/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2694 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH - A , KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE . . , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . . , , SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER . / I.T.A.NO. 425/KOL/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITO, WARD 56(3), KOLKATA. - - - VERSUS - . ANURAG KR. AGARWAL, 1999, RABINDRA SARANI, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA - 7. ACXPA 5812 F ( / A PPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI VINAY KUMAR, DR / FOR THE RESPONDENT : / SHRI S.M.SURANA, AR / ORDER . . , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DT.27.11.2009 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 1,57,03,383 / - U/S. 194C/40(A)(IA) OF THE L.T. ACT, 196 1 ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO. 15J STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITH ITO, WARD - 57(1), TDS, KOLKATA WHO WAS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER, IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(3) READ WITH RULE 29D OF THE L.T. RULES,1962. 2) THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN TAKING COGNIGENCE OF FORM NO.15J FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF 2 ND PROVISO AND 3 RD PROVISO TO SECT ION 194C(3)(I) READ WITH RULE 29D OF THE IT. RULES, 1962. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED FORM 15J WITH THE ITO, WHO WAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS .1,57,03,383 U/S.194C R.W.S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961. HOWEVER, / I.T.A.NO.425/KOL/2010 2 THE LEARNED DR CONCEDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. WE CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO R EFER THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGES 5 AND 6, WHICH READ AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS OBTAINED FORMS 15J IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF H IRE CHARGES OF RS. 1,57,03,383/ - AND THAT FROM NO. 15J WITH REQUISITE DETAILS WAS FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 57(1)(TDS) ON 19.06.2006 . SINCE THIS MATTER WAS NOT EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 04/09/2 009, THE .A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND FURNISH REMAND REPORT ON THIS MATTER. THE A.O. IN HIS LETTER DATED 06.10.2009 HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED FORM NO. 15J BEFORE THE ITO TDS WD - 57(1) ON 19.06.2006. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDE RED THE ABOVE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED FORM 15 - I, COPY OF FORM 15 - J AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND 40(A) OF THE ACT. WHAT IS CRUCIAL, IN MY VIEW FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS ON CONTRACT PAYMENTS/SUB - CO NTRACT PAYMENTS, IS THAT THE PAYER SHOULD OBTAIN FORMS 151 FROM THE PAYEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND FURNISH EVIDENCE EITHER BY FURNISHING FORM NO. 15J WITH REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR BY FILING NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE FACT THAT HE HAS RECEIVED FORMS 151 AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS OBTAIN FROM 151 FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS TO WHOM LORRY HIRE CHARGES WERE PAID AND FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS IN FORM NO. 15J BEFORE THE ITO WARD - 57(1)T DS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA)/ 194C OF THE L.T.ACT READ WITH RULE 29D OF THE IT. RULES, 1962. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE LORRY HIR E CHARGES OF RS. 1 ,57,03,383/ - . ACCORDINGLY, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE RS.1,57,03,383/ - . / I.T.A.NO.425/KOL/2010 3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AS M ENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER FACTS ON REC ORD, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA)/194C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 READ WITH RULE 29 D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES,1962 AND THEREAFTER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,57 ,03,383 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 08.04.2010 SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ), ( B.R.MITTAL ), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE : 08.04.20 10 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : ITO, WARD 56(3), KOLKATA. 2 / THE RESPONDENT - ANU RAG KR. AGARWAL, 1999, RABINDRA SARANI, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA - 7. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY , / BY ORDER , / DEPUTY REGISTRAR . ( /) H.K.PADHEE / SNR.PRIVATE SECRETARY.