ITO, Tuticorin V. M/s. Garas Corporation, Tuticorin

MA 152/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7154 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RANGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 152/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1036/MDS/2010) & I.T.A. NO. 1036/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), TUTICORIN. (PETITIONER/APPELLANT) V. M/S GARAS CORPORATION, 126/6B, NEW COLONY, TUTICORIN. PAN : AACFG1538K (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER/APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B. R ANGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BAS KAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.10.2011 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, GRIEVANCE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT OUT OF THE TWO GROUNDS RAISED BY IT , GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF LORRY FREIGHT ` 52,126/- WAS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 152/MDS/11 2 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP, LEARNED D.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT DEAL WITH GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WE HAVE SEEN THE ORDER AND NOTED THE CONTENTS. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE REGARDING DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LORRY FREIGHT ` 56,126/-. THE ORDER IS RECALLED TO THIS EXTENT AND DISPOSED O F HEREUNDER. 4. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID L ORRY FREIGHT ` 56,126/- TO M/S SRI MAHESWARI LORRY BOOKING OFFICE AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED THEREON. FOR THE REASON THAT NO TDS WAS D EDUCTED, THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS ONLY ` 49,987/- AND NOT ` 52,126/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT PAID TO M/S SRI MAHESWARI LORRY BOOKING OFFICE CAME TO ` 49,987/- ONLY AND HELD THAT SECTION 194C(1) OF THE ACT WAS N OT APPLICABLE I.T.A. NO. 152/MDS/11 3 SINCE THE AMOUNT IN AGGREGATE WAS LESS THAN ` 50,000/-. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED D.R. TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ` 49, 987/- BUT ` 52,126/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY T HE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE TO THE EXTENT RECALLED STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I, MADURAI (4) CIT-I, MADURAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE