9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The Revenue has raised only one substantive ground with respect to deduction of TDS on lorry high charges and also applicability of provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act on such payments. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company is in the business of transportation and filed return of income on 30.11.2006 admitting total income of Rs. 17,970/- and the return was processed u/sec. 143(1). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer issued notice. In response to the notice ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted necessary details and also evidences in support of the financial statements. The Assessing Officer based on the information of Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Services P. Ltd 357 ITR 642 (All). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after perusing Form No.15I and 15J filed before the Income Tax Officer, TDS ward, Chennai on 04.04.2006 and also list of truck drivers to whom truck charges was paid has held that provisions of u/sec 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked since above amount was already paid and there are no outstanding payable as on 31.03.2006 and further emphasized the definitions of ''paid'' and ''payable'' supported with various Tribunals decisions and High Court decisions and also relied on the decision of Apex Court allowed the appeal of the assessee observing in his order at para 4.1.8:- ''Further recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide CC No.8068/2014 dated 02.07.2014 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee irrespective of amount paid or payable and made an distinction of the decision of Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd (supra) is on different ground applicable for salary payment and therefore cannot be considered and relied on judicial decisions and CBDT Circular. Further, submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not put the materials for any verification or called for the remand report in respect of evidences filed by way of from 15I and form 15J in the appellate proceedings and prayed the Tribunal to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that the said information was filed be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been deducted, the amount should be payable and not which has been paid by the end of the year.'' We are of the opinion that the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only when the amount of expenditure is payable and outstanding as on 31st March of the previous year in which the assessee has claimed expenditure. The additional information was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no remand report was called for from Assessing Officer. It is apparent that such statements and information's was not available to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the Assessing Officer with the direction to verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
