TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a transporter and labour contractor working for Central Ware Housing Corporation, Indore, and Makshi and also NAFED. Assessee has debited ₹ 2,26,74,229/- as Transportation Charges in the profit and loss account. The AO found that the assessee has made various payments to transporters outsourced by it. However, no TDS was deducted on such payment. The AO verified books of account and also the balance sheet and audit report thereon. In point No. 7 of the Schedule 7 of the Notes on Account , it was qualified by the auditor that In respect of payment made towards transportation charges, it has been informed to us that the individual truck owner to whom payments have been made towards transportation charges does not own more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cles, which were found by the AO as scooter, car, moped etc. was not correct. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on account of bogus freight payment after retaining an addition of ₹ 5 lakhs. Both the assessee Revenue are in appeal before us. 4. It was argued by the ld. Authorized Representative that there was no written or oral contract by the assessee with the transport operator, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of non-deduction of TDS. With respect to the disallowance made for bogus payment debited in profit and loss account, it was contended that the ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report wherein it was found that the AO was not fully correct, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as audit report, it was found that the assessee has wrongly claimed that it has obtained declaration form 15-I from the truck owners, even the auditor has given specific notes on account that the assessee has obtained declaration form No.15I from the truck owners. The AO also found that the assessee has entered bogus payment in the books of account on account of transportation charges, which was shown as paid to the truck owners, but as per the vehicle number provided by the assessee, it was found that most of the numbers belong to Moped, Car, Scooter etc. However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance of ₹ 36,84,384/- by observing that there was no written or oral contract between the assessee and any of the truck owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the prescribed limit prevailing during the year under consideration, which was ₹ 50,000/- and in respect of such payment only he has invoked provisions of Section 40a(ia) read with Section 194C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Bhagwati Steels, 241 CTR 480, dismissed the Revenue s appeal on the plea that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, wherein it was found that none of the individual payments exceeded ₹ 20,000/- and the payments were made on the basis of individual goods receipts issued by the truck owners for each trip separately. 8. Disallowance was also made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus payment debi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
