TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee during the course of these rectification proceedings, the contention of the Revenue of having raised any additional grounds during the course of appeal proceedings before the Tribunal or any mistake in the order of the Tribunal on account of non-consideration of grounds, is devoid of merit. The assessee has to share 15% of the gross maintenance receipts collected during the year with the owner of the building i.e. Deep Corporation Pvt. Ltd and taking into account the stipulation made in the agreement it is a diversion of income at source and not an expenditure in the hands of the assessee - the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO in invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) – Decided Partly in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to M/s. Deep Corporation Pvt. Limited in such contracts. (b) CIT(A) erred in law holding that with reference to payments made to M/s. Deep Corporation Pvt. Limited, TDS need not be done u/s. 194C and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not attracted on payments of ₹ 48,33,805/- made to M/s. Deep Corporation Limited. However, it is submitted by the Learned Departmental Representative, the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of the Revenue, vide order dated 11.10.2013, has not disposed of the above additional grounds, which is a mistake apparent from record, warranting rectification/recall. In support of having raised the above additional grounds, on a query from the bench, a letter of the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim, does not bear any authentic stamp/seal with the signature of the recipient of the Registry of this Tribunal, with whom it might have been filed, and secondly and more importantly, it does not contain the enclosure, viz. the additional grounds sought to be raised. As such, that evidence furnished cannot be taken as clinching to support the version of the applicant. Even on examining the matter in the light of the entries made by us during the appeal hearing, we do not find any arguments having been made by the Learned Departmental Representative, either with regard to the admission of the additional grounds, or on the merits thereof. This position, also corroborated by the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of diversion of income at source. Parting with that proportion of the annual maintenance receipts with the building owner, in my view, cannot be treated as expenditure in the hands of the appellant. Under the circumstance, the said disallowance made by the AO invoking Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, is not justified, and hence the same is deleted. 23. We find that the assessee has to share 15% of the gross maintenance receipts collected during the year with the owner of the building i.e. Deep Corporation Pvt. Ltd ad taking into account the stipulation made in the agreement it is a diversion of income at source and not an expenditure in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
