TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition is called for - With respect to the addition which has been held by the CIT(A) to be bogus, Assessee has placed copies of Form 15J, 15I copies of RC books and PAN cards of the truck owners – the documents were not before CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the evidence submitted before us, being in the nature of additional evidence needs verification at the end of AO – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - I.T. A. No. 298/AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2014 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A.C. Shah. A.R. For the Respondent : Shri O.P. Batheja, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 15-1 in Form No. 15-J but there is no failure to deduct tax at source. Therefore, the addition made is not proper. 2.1 The appellant says and submits that Form No. 15-J is filed on 17-04-2009 with CIT. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,87,393 under Section 37 as bogus expenditure out of addition of Rs. 1,67,08,372 made by AO under Section 40(a)(ia) without giving any opportunity to the assessee for changing the stand that has been taken by AO. 3.1 The appellant says and submits that the assessee has accepted Form No. 15-1 as submitted by the sub-contractors. If there is any defect then the responsibility is with the declarent and not with the assessee. 3.2 The appellant further says and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly disallowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of A.O, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. but however held that out of total disallowance of RS. 1,67,08,372/-, addition of Rs. 60,87,393/- to be bogus expenditure and balance of Rs. 1,06,20,979/- was disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The reason for considering the expenditure to be bogus by CIT(A) was that on the scrutiny of Form 15 I it was noted that in several cases incomplete addresses of the transporters were stated and they were stated to be residing at far off places in South India, the addresses were also incomplete and it was also noticed by her that at least 35 persons were stated to be staying at one address in Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,67,08,372/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act but when the matter reached before CIT(A), CIT(A) out of the total disallowance made by A.O, treated the expenses of Rs. 60,87,393/- to be bogus and the action of A.O was upheld with respect to balance disallowance of Rs. 1,06,20,979/- u/s. 40(a)(ia). We also find that disallowance on account of non submission of Form 15I/J was made by A.O in A.Y. 06-07 and thereafter the matter was decided in favour of Assessee by the Hon ble Tribunal in ITA No. 2228/AHD/2009 order dated 29.04.2011. Against the order of Tribunal, Revenue preferred appeal before Hon ble High Court which was dismissed by High Court and thus the order of Tribunal attained finality. The decision is reported on (2012) 28 Taxman. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable under sub-section (2) of section 194C of the Act. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the view in the impugned judgment. It may be that failure to comply such requirement by the payee may result into some other adverse consequences if so provided under the Act. However, fulfillment of such requirement cannot be linked to the declaration of tax at source. Any such failure therefore cannot be visualized by adverse consequences provided under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. When on the basis of the record it is not disputed that the requirements of further proviso were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
