Sh. Jagan Nath, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4759/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7073 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJANA
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 47 59 /DEL/201 4 AY: 20 07 - 08 SH. JAGAN NATH VS. ITO, WARD 29(3) PROP. M/S NAND LAL JAGANNATH SARAF NEW DELHI 1664/65, DARIBA KALAN, CHANDNI CHOWK NEW DELHI PAN: AAEPN 0308 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAJEEV KUMAR , ADV. SH. DEVINDER PAL , ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.DAM KANUNJ ANA , SR.D.R ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME T AX (A PPEALS ) - XXV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 20 07 - 08 DATED 2 .6.2014. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 194 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISPUTES DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE A CT. 2. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FOR LAB OUR CHARGES PAID OF RS. 3,85,070/ - UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE A C T. 3. THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 194C WAS BROUGHT W.E.F. 01/06/2007, WHEREIN INDIVIDUALS AND HUF S OF CERTAIN CATE GORIES WERE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S ECTION 194C OF THE A CT. PRIOR TO THAT, INDIVIDUALS HAD NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE . A S THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION IS 2006 - 2007, 2 THIS SECTION CANNOT BE APPLIED. CONSEQUENTLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UND ER SECTION 40 A(IA) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW . IN MY VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA B ENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SMT. KEYA SETH, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA VIDE ITA NOS. 842 AND 843/KOL/2010 DATED 11.03.2011 . T HUS I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40 A(IA) OF THE A CT AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS . H ENCE WE DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED . 5. IN THE RES ULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART . P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JUNE, 2016 . SD/ - (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 29 TH J UNE, 2016 *MANGA 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR