Indranil Sanjjaybhai Rajyaguru, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 94/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7363 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J C RANPURA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ( AM) I.T.A. NO.94/RJT/2011. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) INDRANIL SANJAYBHAI RAJGURU, VS THE I.T.O., SANJAYRAJ ESTATE, WARD 1 (4), RAJKOT. RACE COURSE, RAJKOT. PAN:ADBPR0508G. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 14-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-12-2011 REVENUE BY : SHRI M. K. SINGH, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J. C. RANPURA, C.A. O R D E R PER T.K. SHARMA (JM) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01-02-2011 OF CIT (A)-I, RAJKOT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS UNDE R:-. (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) -I, RAJKOT ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.67,504/- MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BEING THE ADVERTISING EXPENSES PAID TO IMMAGE OFFSET ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF NON-DEDUC TION OF TAX. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE SHRI J. C. RANPURA, C.A. APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,504/- WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PERTAINS TO PURCHASE OF MATERIAL FROM IMMAGE OFFSET, SHRI MA HALAXMI BUILDING, GODOWN ROAD, RAJKOT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS THE PHOTOCOPIES O F THE BILLS WERE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. HE POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE PAYMENT IN Q UESTION WAS MADE OF PURCHASES OF MATERIAL AND NOT MADE TO CONTRACTOR, T HEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ITA NO 94/RJT/2011. A.Y. 2006-07. 2 REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE (TDS) U/S.194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IN SUPPORT OF HIS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS) VS. BATA INDIA (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 7 ITR 246 (TRIBUNAL). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI M. K. SINGH, D. R. APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THIS PLEA WAS NOT RAISED B EFORE ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S .40(A)(IA) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,504/- BE UPHELD. 5. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE SUBMITTED. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BATA INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE PURCHASER IS NOT REQ UIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES OF PRINTING MATERI AL. FROM THE BILLS PRODUCED BEFORE US, IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENT IN QUESTION AMO UNTING TO RS.67,504/- WAS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL TO IMMAGE OFFSET. TH EREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE U/S.194C OF TH E I. T. ACT, 1961. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES U NDER THE HEAD OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES IS NO GROUND TO HOLD THAT AT APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT EXPLAIN THE CORRECT NATURE OF EXPEN SE. WE THEREFORE, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67,504/- MADE BY AO U/S.40(A)(IA ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-12-1 2-2011. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT, DT :22 DECEMBER, 2011 NVA/- ITA NO 94/RJT/2011. A.Y. 2006-07. 3 COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT-III, RAJKOT 5. THE DR, I.T.A.T., RAJKOT (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAJKOT