9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of materials available on record and after considering the submission of Departmental Representative. 3. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of Rs 6,79,267/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made payments of Rs 12,63,860/- towards carting expenses without deducting tax at source u/s. 194C of the Act. In reply to show cause notice of the Assessing Officer, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted details of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that on verification of Form No. 15J, he found that the same was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax on 26.06.2006 in respect of three subcontractors and that out of these three sub-contractors, no particulars for one Shri. Pravin R. Patel to whom payment of Rs 1,50,700/- had been claimed were filed. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition of Rs 1,50,700/- out of sum of Rs 7,17,778/- and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs 5,67,078/-. Similarly, out of the payment of Rs 1,01,797/- consisting of small amounts, no details were given for amount of Rs 30,000/-. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowance of Rs 30,000/- and deleted the disallowance for the balance payment of Rs 71,797/-. Thus, out of total of Rs 8,59,696/-, disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of Rs 5,67,078/-, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the same by observing that the payment was made to the sub-contractors who owned not more than two trucks and declaration in respect of those sub-contractors were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source in respect of the said sum of Rs 5,67,078/-. No error in the above finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could be pointed out by the Departmental Representative. 10. Further, in respect of deletion of Rs 71,797/-, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the payment was made in small amounts in respect of which the assessee was not liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to 5% of Rs 1,13,58,252/-. Hence, he confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs 5,67,912/- and directed to delete the balance disallowance of Rs 5,67,913/-. 14. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. We find that the Assessing Officer could not point out the amount of expenses for which vouchers could not be produced by the assessee or the amount of expenses in respect of which vouchers produced were defective and what was the nature of defect in the vouchers. Further, we find that the no basis of making disallowance at the rate of 10% was stated in the order of assessment. Thus, the disallowance was made entirely on the basis of arbitrary estimate of the Assessing Officer. In absence of any materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
