TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar, J This order shall dispose of two appeal Nos. ITA 374 of 2011 and 366 of 2011 which have been filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') claiming that following substantial questions of law would arise from the order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2010 in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 and 12.10.2010 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 while deciding ITA No. 755/ Chd./2009 and 789/Chd./2009 respectively. "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concurring with the order of authorities below in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 33,97,674/- u/s 40(a)(ia) by holding the appellant as liable to deduct tax u/s 194 C which amounts t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of the Assessee-company for hiring of vehicles (both heavy and light commercial vehicles) the Assessing Officer held that sum of Rs. 33,97,674/- were not allowable as expenditure in view of the provisions of Section 40a(ia) of the Act. It is appropriate to mention that connected ITA No.366 of 2011 has been filed by Shri Jagjeet Singh. 3. The Assessing Officer further found that cash payments were made in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act both in respect of amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/- paid in cash as well as in relation to payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- made in cash as shown in the books of accounts by breaking it into smaller amounts each below Rs.20,000/-. In the order of the Assessing Officer a sample of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer with a direction to him to examine the claim of the assessee in line with the directions issued by the Tribunal in ITA No. 714/Chd.2008 in respect of the assessment year 2001-02 decided on 27.2.2009. The Tribunal has further held that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to the assessee- appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee-appellant at a considerable length. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the assessee-appellant, we are of the considered view that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on question no.1 cannot be interfered with particularly when it has made cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. There is ample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
