TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined by various High Court. Since no decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court directly on the issue has been brought to our notice, therefore, considering the conflict of opinion between various High Court and the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on the issue in question. A perusal of CIT(A)’s order reveals that issues raised by the assessee related to disallowance of various expenses were not contested before the CIT(A). Since the issues raised in cross objection do not arise out of the order of CIT(A), therefore, we decline to admit the cross-objection filed by the assessee. - Appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objection preferred by the assessee stand dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man.com 244 (Vishakhapatnam -Trib.)(SB), wherein by the majority view it has been held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which has been actually paid during previous year, without deduction of TDS. Since the amount had actually been paid to the sub-contractors, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 2.3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Following grounds are raised: On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in 1. Deleting the addition of ₹ 28,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Holding that the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only with reference to amounts payable as on 31st March and will not apply to the amounts which stood actually paid by the assessee during the year. Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar 362 ITR 241. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the record of the case. The facts are not disputed. Admittedly assessee did not deduct the tax as required under the provisions of section 194C. However, it is also not disputed that no amount was payable at the end of the year to sub-contractors. Under such circumstances, the majority view decision of Special Bench in the case Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra), is squarely applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the finding on the facts, which were not controverted by the department and thus the question of law as framed does not arise for consideration in the appeal. The income tax appeal is dismissed. 5.1. These observations have been made with reference to the findings of the Tribunal in ITA no. 5219/Del/2012 in the case of M/s Vector Shipping Services, which is reproduced hereunder:- 7 We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The submissions made before ld. CIT(A), as noted earlier, have not been controverted by the Department. It is not disputed that M/s Mercator Lines Limited had deducted TDS on salaries paid by it on behalf of assessee. Under such circumstances assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y pointed out that no expenditure had been claimed on accrual basis as assessee was following cash system of accounting. However, for better control and record maintenance, they were maintaining a memorandum in the books. In the back drop of these facts the Hon ble High Court, inter alia, observed that in it is an accepted position that the assessment order nowhere recorded or specifically held that the account of the payee was credited with ₹ 78,51,800/- or with ₹ 1,48,49,500/-. Under such circumstances, a pragmatic and a practical approach had to be adopted. The Hon ble High Court further observed that assessee had deducted as tax at source in the month of March 2007 and thereafter paid it in April 2007. Therefore, the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
