Gobind RAm Gupta, Bhadrak V. JCIT, Balasore

ITA 513/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 51322114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S C BHADRA
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 GOVIND RAM GUPTA, CHARMPA, BHADRAK, PAN: ABZPG 9930 H - - - VERSUS - JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALAS ORE. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI S.C.BHADRA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / S MT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 26.11.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RAISES A SOLITARY GROUND WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON HIRING OUT TRANSPORTERS FOR CARRYING OUT T HE ASSESSEE HAVING ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH L ARSON & TU BRO FOR TRANSPORTING ITS MATERIAL WHEN THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED ALONG WITH THE TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO OTHER TRANSPORT OWNERS ON THE SUBMISSION OF FORM 15 - I TO THE ASSESS EE FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.194C. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAVE APPLIED THE MISCHIEF OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF INC OME TAX ACT, DISALLOWING RS. 1,66,97,428 , TREATING THE APPELLANT IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX FROM TRUCK OWNERS, WHEN THERE IS NO EXPLICIT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TRUCK OWNERS AND THE APPELLANT. AND ALSO THE TRUCK OWNERS, TO DISCHARGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY HAVE FILED DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 15 - I, IN ADVANCE, REQUESTING THE APPELLANT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM SOURCE. I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 2 3. THE APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR BY TRANSPORTING MATERIALS FOR PRINCIPAL THROUGH HIRING TRUCKS WHENEVER RE QUIRED FROM TRUCK OWNERS. THERE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND THE APPELLANT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE APPELLANT IN RETURN HIRES TRUCKS FROM TRUCK OWNERS, WHENEVER REQUIRED, WITHOUT ANY EXPLICIT CONTRACT EITHER WRITTEN OR VERBAL. DEPENDING UPON THE REQUIREMENT, THE TRUCK OWNERS ARE ASKED TO PROVIDE TRUCK ON PAYMENT BASIS TO TRANSPORT THE MATERIALS. SUO MOTTO THE TRUCK OWNERS FURNISH DECLARATION FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN FORM NO.15 - I . THE APPELL ANT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FURNISHED NAME OF THE TRANSPORT OWNERS AND AMOUNT PAID /CREDITED. AND ALSO AS DESIRED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED THE DECLARATIONS IN FORM NO. 151, SUPPLIED BY THE TRUCK OWNER. THE APPELLANT FILED FORM NO. 15J, AL ONG WITH FORM NO. 151, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INSTEAD OF JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE DISPUTE IS LIMITED TO NON - DEDUCTI ON OF TAX FROM THE SUB - CONTRACTORS, WHO ARE TRUCK OWNERS AND HAVE FILED DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 15 - I , REQUESTING FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT FORM NO. 15 - I , FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS. THE RECEIPT OF FORM NO. 15 - I FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS PROMPTED BOTH THE AUTHORITIES TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE TRUCK OWNERS, BEING THE SUBCONTRACTO R. TAKING THE ABOVE PLEA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF INCOME TAX ACT AND A DISALLOWED RS. 1,66,97,428/ - . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOW THERE ARE TWO ISSUES WHICH NEED T O BE I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 3 ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WHETHER AFTER RECEIVING OF FORM NO. 15 - I FROM THE SUB - CONTRACTORS WHO ARE TRUCK OWNERS, DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM SOUR CE IS REQUIRED? IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE WA S MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) CITING THE ORDER OF ITAT, AHMEDABAAD IN THE CASE OF VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL NO.2228/AHD/2009, WHICH COPY IS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT IF ASSESSE E HAS OBTAINED FORM NO. 15 - I THEN IT IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF INCOME TAX ACT . AGAIN, THE MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN SETTLED BY THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF THE SAME APPELLANT VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD. THE OPERATING P ART OF THE ORDER CONTAINED IN PARA 7, 8, AND 9 CLEARLY SPEAKS THAT WHEN THE SUBCONTRACTORS ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT PRODUCES NECESSARY DECLARATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE PAYMENT MADE OR TO BE MADE TO SUCH SUBCONTRACTOR WOULD CEASE. HENCE, THE APPELLANT ON RECEIPT OF DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 15 - I , CANNOT DEDUCT TAX FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS. AND ALSO SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DISPOSED OFF BY COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . RAJESH KUMAR GARG PRONOU NCING THAT ONCE DECLARATION IN THE FORM 15 - I IS SUBMITTED BEFORE ACTUAL PAYMENT OR CREDITING, BY THE TRUCK OWNERS, THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX FORM SOURCES CEASES. THE SECOND ISSUE IS WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE TRUCK OWNERS? TH E APPELLANT IS A CONTRACTOR WHO TRANSPORTS MATERIALS ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITION. HE ENGAGED TRUCK OWNERS ON THE BASIS OF ITS REQUIREMENT TO TRANSPORT MATERIAL WHENEVER REQUIRED. THERE IS NO WRITTEN OR ORAL CONTRACT WITH ANY PARTICULAR TRUCK OWNER TO TR ANSPORT MATERIAL WITH FIXED TERMS AND CONDITION . MERELY ISSUE OF FORM NO. 15 - I , SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT SHALL NOT CONSTRUE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORAL CONTRACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 4 COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITA T,CUTTACK IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAKANT THACKAR VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, REPORTED IN (2010), 129 TTJ (CTK ) . SIMILARLY, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH IN THE CASE OF R. R. CARRYING CORPORATION VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2009) 126 TTJ (CTK) 240 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR MAKING ADDITION IS THAT TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM SOURCE AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. IF BOTH THE C ONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED THEN SUCH PAYMENT CAN BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A) (IA). IN OTHER WORDS WHEN TAX IS NON - DEDUCTIBLE, ADDITIO N U/S 40(A) (IA) CANNOT BE MADE. HE PRAYED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE SOLE CONSIDERATION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT A CONTRACT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND TRANSPORTERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED THE PURPORTED FORMS 15 - I WHICH THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOTED OTHERWISE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE PROPOSED TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J.RAMA V. CIT (344 ITR 608) WHEN IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE OUGHT TO BE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PAYER AND NOT BECAUSE SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS TO BE FOUND OUT THAT A CONTRACT MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PROCEDURE OF PAYMENTS BEGAN WAS CONSIDERED BY IT APPROPRIATE WHEN THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN FACT THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT CORRELATE WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE EVEN THE RE QUIREMENT OF OBTAINING FOR 15 - I WAS NOT STIPULATED BY THE ACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HA S NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY HIM. THEREFORE, FINDING TO THE ISSUE ON HAND HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE FACTS I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 5 BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE DETERMINE TAXABILITY OR OTHERWISE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INV OKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ON THE PAYMENTS MADE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,69,33,015 WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS AGAINST MATERIAL TRANSPORT COST ON THE CONTRACT AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN RS. 5 CRORES. HE ARGUED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION HIRING CHARGES ALONG WITH THE MATERIAL WAS RS. 5,76,82,479 THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION AGAINST CONTRACT BUT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE, ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING THESE FACTS WHICH ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFINED TO HIS FINDING WHETHER FORM 15 - I HAD BEEN RECEIVED ENTITLING THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WHETHER COULD BE FURTHER LOOKED U PON TO FIND EXI STENCE OF A CONTRACT. THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 1,66,97,428 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY THEREFORE BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS T HE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY TRIED TO FIND A CASE WHEN THE HUGE SUM HAS BEEN PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION COST WHETHER COULD BE PAID WITHOUT ENTERING INTO CONTRACT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). FILING OF FORM 15 - I THEREFORE LOO SES SIGNIFICANCE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT FILED IN HIS OFFICE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED BY FILING FORM 15 - J TO REGULARIZE THE HOLDING OF FORM 15 - I BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CIT, ADMINISTRATION. SHE FULLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HER PART OF SUBMISSIONS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE EMPHASIS IS ON THE LEARNED CIT(A) TELESCOPING THE FINDING OF FACTS I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 6 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THE APPLICABILITY OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA VS. CIT, 344 ITR 608 INSOFAR AS NO EFFORT WAS MADE IN THE CITED DECISION OF HIGHLIGHTING THE PROVISIONS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 194C WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA). IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE RENDERED THE DECISION THAT TOO A THEORITICAL WAY OF CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AND NOT PRACTICA L CONSIDERATION AS WOULD BE MORE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THE REASON THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LEADING TO THE FINDING WHEN THE EFFORT S HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN FORM 15 - I FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO HOLD A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER WHETHER WOULD BE EXHAUSTIVE EXERCISE TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PARTLY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HIMSELF WHEN HE CHOSE TO DISALLOW THE TOTAL LORRY FREIGHT PAID AMOUNTING TO 1,66,97,428. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT HAVING TAKEN SUB - CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION AMOUNTING TO 5,76,82,479, IT WAS THE AS SESSEES ENDEAVOR TO ENGAGE TRUCKS AND OBTAIN PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(6) AS CLARIFIED W.E.F. 1.10.2009 WHEN NO DEDUCTION WAS TO BE MADE HAVING OBTAINED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF. A PROCEDURAL OR THE TECHNICAL DEFECT ON THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DEEMING PROVISIONS U/S.40(A)(IA) WHICH ONLY INDICATES THAT ONLY THOSE AMOUNTS ARE TO BE SUBJECTED TO DISALLOWANCE ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE. HERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EST ABLISHED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TAX WAS NOT TO BE DEDUCTED WHEN THE LAW PROVIDES THAT ON FURNISHING OF HIS PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DEDUCT I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 7 TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S.40(A)(IA) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PER THE FINDING OF FACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE MADE THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS HAVE BEEN NOW CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AS PER THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIS - - VIS THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA VS. CIT, 344 ITR 608 . FOR OBTAINING A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER THERE WAS NO RE QUIREMENT OF ORAL OR WRITTEN CONTRACT INSOFAR AS THE RECIPIENT KNOWS THAT THE AMOUNT EXCEEDING 50,000 WAS NOT TO BE CHARGED TO TAX FURNISHING THE FORM 15 - I WHICH RELATE TO THE FINDING THAT THE OWNER OF TWO TRUCKS ARE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 44AE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS CLARIFIED THE DECISION REGARDING NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE VIS - A - VIS APPLICABILITY OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER PROCEED ED TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE CLAIM, WHICH IN OUR VIEW HAS BEEN CORRELATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE FINDING THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRUCKS ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSPORTING MATERIAL NOT BELONGING TO IT WAS PURELY FOR EXECUTING THE SUB - CONTRACT WHI CH HE HAD UNDERTAKEN WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(5) AS CLARIFIED W.E.F. 1.10.2009. THIS MEANS THE ASSESSEE NEVER ENTERED INTO ANY CONTRACT WHEN THE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE DEDUCT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE HAS TO BE MADE ON PAYMENT EXCEEDING 50,000 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ON THE BASIS OF A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRUCK OWNERS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE NUMEROUS TRUCK OWNERS AS WER E TO I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 8 BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESULTED ONLY IN A FINDING THAT THE COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW HAS BEEN MADE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PER THE PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS ALREADY RENDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON HAND WAS NOT TO BE TELESCOPED ON THE DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) CHOOSE TO CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE PROVISIONS PRACTICALLY AND THEORETICALLY. THE FACTS WHIC H HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE SOLE CRITERIA WHETHER THE DEEMING PROVISION COULD APPLY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO CONTRACT AT ALL. IT WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DEDUCT TAX PROVIDED HE WAS NOT IGNORANT OF THE FACT T HAT FORM 15 - I OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRUCK OWNERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPRECIATED THE INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR LORRY FREIGHT. THIS IN ITSELF SHOULD HAVE LED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO GIVE A FINDING THAT NON - DEDUCTION OF TA X COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED U/S.201 AND NOT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVING OBTAINED PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE INSOFAR AS THE FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS NARRATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS OF NOW WHEN THE PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS CITED BY HIM ARE APPLICABLE DO NOT REQUIRE FURTHER DELIBERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1,66,97,428 U/S.40(A)(IA). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), AC COUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 30.11.2012 ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 513/CTK/2012 9 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : GOVIND RAM GUPTA, CHARMPA, B HADRAK, 2 / THE RESPONDENT: JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTAT ION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 27.11.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.11.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.11.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..