TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,32,54,820/-, only an amount of ₹ 30,71,97,689/- is sustainable, as the assessee could satisfactorily explain with evidence the balance amount. This does not mean that by making such observation, the Assessing Officer had admitted the claim of the assessee to the extent as mentioned by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal, without any explanation, proceeded to hold that the dispute was only with regard to ₹ 28,28,38,187/-. Even if the last two figures are added, the total amount would not be the amount of total disallowance as mentioned by the Tribunal. This itself shows that there is error in the figures shown. Secondly, the Tribunal says that it is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed form 15-I to the extent of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total amount of ₹ 28,89,12,411/-, leaving a balance of ₹ 60,74,224/-. A perusal of this order shows that the figure ₹ 28,89,12,411/- is taken by the first appellate authority from the remand report of the Assessing Officer dated 17.2.2014, which is also extracted in that order. Proceeding further, the first appellate authority disposed of the appeal deleting the disallowance except for the amount of ₹ 60,74,224/-. 3. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal as ITA.262/14 against the order of the first appellate authority. The appeal was heard along with ITA.261/14 filed by the assessee and both the appeals were disposed of by Annexure C order, where, in so far as it is relevant, the Tribunal held thus: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has filed form 15-I, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. Now what remains is only disallowance of ₹ 60,74,224. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed form 15-I. The ld. Senior counsel now claims that the assessee could not collect form 15-I for lapse of time. It is not for the assessee to collect from 15-I; it is for the receipt of the amount to furnish form 15-I to the assessee if the amount received is not taxable in their hands. Therefore, form 15-I has to be furnished before making the payment. The assessee now cannot collect form 15-I from the recipients of the amounts. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that due to lapse of time they could not collect form 15-I is not justified. Unless and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually erroneous because paragraph 7 of the first appellate authority's order states that in the report dated 13.11.2013, what is stated by the Assessing Officer was that, out of the total disallowance of ₹ 61,32,54,820/-, only an amount of ₹ 30,71,97,689/- is sustainable, as the assessee could satisfactorily explain with evidence the balance amount. This does not mean that by making such observation, the Assessing Officer had admitted the claim of the assessee to the extent as mentioned by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal, without any explanation, proceeded to hold that the dispute was only with regard to ₹ 28,28,38,187/-. Even if the last two figures are added, the total amount would not be the amount of total d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
