TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial purchased - assessee contended that that each transaction in a single day is less than Rs.20,000/- and the amended provision under which aggregation of payments made in a single day is to be considered is w.e.f. 1-4-2009 and hence is not applicable for the year under appeal - AY 08-09 - Held that:- In view of decision in case of Shree Mahaveer Corporation vs. ITO, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee. - ITA No.792/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - SHRI N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JJ. Appellant by: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.A. Respondent by : Shri B. Saravanan, JCIT O R D E R Per N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VP: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Shri Ashok Kumar Rai, Mang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the payees had reported income in their returns of income. However, the CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee has not given any reason why there is no obligation to deduct tax on the above payments and that the disclosure of income in the returns of payees has no bearing on TDS provision. Thus, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee by upholding the assessment order. 3.2 Still aggrieved, the assessee is on second appeal before us with this issue. The relevant ground of appeal reads as under: 2. The authorities below are not justified in making disallowance of Rs.2,94,800/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant s case. At the time of hearing, learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time allowed such amount shall be disallowed while computing the income. The sub-section speaks of the amount payable on which the tax is not deducted and therefore it should apply only if any amount is payable , but if the amount is already paid the provisions of this section should not apply. The crucial word is payable . The question whether payable means payable at the end of the year or payable at any time during the year though paid during the year itself? If one looks into the TDS provisions from section 194-A to 194-K, it will be apparent that as per the language of those sections, tax is to be deducted at the time the amount is paid or at the time when the amount is credited, i.e. when the liability is admitted and it become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to sec.40A(3) of the Act. The AO, while framing the assessment noticed that the assessee has paid Rs.6,68,920/- in cash in a day to various parties towards material purchased. According to sec.40A(3), where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account pay bank draft, exceeds Rs.20,000/- no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. In view of the above, the AO made disallowance of Rs.6,68,920/-. 4.1. The assessee was aggrieved and moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the CIT(A) it was pleaded that each transaction in a single day is less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department that the amendments are effective prospectively is accepted, it would cause hardship and invidious discrimination among the assessees. In light of the above decisions, I am of the view that the curative amendment is applicable to the current year also and the Assessing Officer had made the addition correctly. Hence the appeal is dismissed on this ground. 5. The next ground is that the AO has not considered the TDS credit of Rs.6,48,062/- while computing the demand. The AO is directed to consider the TDS and allow as per law. The appeal is allowed on this ground. Thus, the assessee failed before the first appellate authority. 4.2 Still aggrieved, the assessee is on second appeal before us with the following ground of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts of the case in Brilliant Study Centre (supra) on which the learned Departmental Representative placed heavy reliance are totally different from that of the present case on hand. In that case, the AO found that the impugned payments were, in each case, pursuant to single transaction and this finding found concurrence with the CIT(A) whereas in the present case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, this is not the case of the AO that the payments were made pursuant to a single transaction. In this view of the matter, following the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, more particularly the decision of the Bangalore Bench in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
