TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made together which exceeded ₹ 20,000/- and, therefore, deleted the disallowances but has brought no material on record to show that whether the payments made were with respect to different contracts or the payments were made with respect to the same contract. If the payments are made with respect to the same contract, then they will be hit by the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) as well as 194C of the Act and if the payments are made for separate contracts, then they will not be hit by the provisions of Section 194C and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since both the parties have not produced any material before us to verify the same; therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue afresh. - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1513/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - Shri N. S. Saini And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Sr. DR. For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramesh Ramjibhai Patel 240000 TDS not made 6 Ramesh Ramjibhai Patel 36600 TDS not made 7 Mukesh G. Patel 700000 TDS not made 8 Mukesh G. Patel 40430 TDS not made TOTAL 1131786 In response thereof, the assessee filed its reply dated 23/12/2009, in which it has taken grounds for not disallowing the said amounts the same is dealt with as under: (A) Shri S. I. Carting Contractor In respect of ₹ 30,000/- credited in this account, it is the contention of the assessee that the same is an advance which does not fall under the provision of section 194C of the I. T. Act. The submission in this respect is found to be devoid of any merit. The assessee has made advance of ₹ 30,000/- during the course of its contract and the same is squarely covered u/s. 194C of the I. T. Act. The assessee also failed to prove the purpose of giving advance other than the contract activity with the said person. In view of the above, the assessee's contention in this respect is rejected and the same is treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07/2006. As the assessee paid ₹ 22,500/- and the amount is more than prescribed by section 194C, the assessee ought to have deducted the tax and tax so deducted should have been paid within the financial year itself. In view of the above, the submission of the assessee in this respect is rejected. As the assessee failed to deduct tax, the payment of ₹ 22,500/- covered u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, and the same is added to the total income. (D) Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Patel In respect of ₹ 2,40,000/- credited in this account, it is the contention of the assessee that the same is an advance which does not fall under the provision of section 194C of the I. T. Act. The submission in this respect is found to be devoid of any merit. The assessee has made advance of ₹ 2,40,000/- during the course of its contract with Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Patel and the same is squarely covered u/s. 194C of the I. T. Act, for the reason that section 194C provide that any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident for carrying out any work... . The assessee also failed to prove the purpose of giving advance other than the contract activity with Rameshbhai Ramjibhai P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(ia) of the I. T. Act. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 7,00,000/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the amount of ₹ 40,430/- it is the contention of the assessee that the amount is less than ₹ 50,000/-, the same is not attracted the provisions of section 194C of the I. T. Act. The submission of the assessee in this respect is found to be devoid of any merit. As per the provision of section 194C of the I. T. Act, if the payment/credit exceeds ₹ 20,000/- then provision of section 194C is applicable on such transaction. As stated above, in the case of the assessee, the assessee has credited ₹ 40,430/- which exceeds the limit prescribed by section 194C of the I. T. Act, the assessee ought to have deducted the tax while crediting the same. As the assessee failed to deduct tax, the payment of ₹ 40,430/- covered u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I. T. Act, and the same is added to the total income. To sum-up, for the reasons discussed above, the assessee submission in respect of the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, is rejected and amount of ₹ 11,31,786/- paid/credited by the assessee without complying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applicable. 7 Mukesh G Patel Rs.7,00,000 194 C is not applicable as this person is there in Loans and Advances shown in the balance sheet. The appellant has given loan / advance to him. 8 Mukesh G Patel Rs.40,340 Ledger account submitted shows bills of less than ₹ 20,000 therefore outside the purview of section 194 C. The AO is directed to delete the addition. 6. The Departmental Representative supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. We find that the CIT(A), while deleting the addition of ₹ 2,40,000/- paid to Ramesh Ramjibhai Patel and ₹ 7,00,000/- paid to Mukesh G. Patel, has held that the said amounts paid were advances to the concerned persons. Under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance of an amount which is otherwise allowable as deduction to the assessee, while computing the business income of the assessee, can be made for non-deduction of TDS from the payments mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
